CAR_Public/150729.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, July 29, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 150


                            Headlines


3D SYSTEMS: Kendall Law Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE: Faces "Akselrod" Suit Over FDCPA Violation
AIR FLORIDA: "Rigal" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Back Wages
AIRMEDIA GROUP: August 24 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Grimes" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Price" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Schumacher" Suit Over Airline Tickets
AMERICAN CARGO: Fails to Pay Inspectors OT Wages, Suit Claims
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Sept. 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
AMERICAN NATIONAL: Does Not Properly Pay Assessors, Suit Claims

AMSHER COLLECTION: Faces "Schwyhart" Suit Over FDCPA Violation
ARIZONA: Goldwater Inst. Sues Over Indian Child Welfare Act
ASTRAZENECA PHARMA: To Pay $55.5-Mil. to Resolve "Streck"
AVALANCHE BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Sued over Misleading Financial Reports
BAC HOME: Judge Narrows Claims in "Fowler Suit"

BAUMGART CAFE: Faces "Ha" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
BREADS OF THE WORLD: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
BROOKLYN UNION: Gas Customers Not Covered Under FDCPA
CARING FUNERAL: Bid to Arbitrate Denied on Appeal
CEDARS OF CHAPEL HILL: Judgment in "Wilner" Suit Vacated

CELLADON CORP: Aug. 31 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Colo. Judge Quashes Subpoena on HR Consultant
CHOICE ENERGY: "Murray" TCPA Class Action Dismissed
CLEARWATER BILLING: Sued in Florida Over Illegal Billing Policies
COLORADO: 4-Day Bench Trial in "Decoteau" to Begin Nov. 9

COOPER TIRE: Suit Over Failed Apollo Tyres Buyout Dismissed
CORMEDIX INC: Sept. 4 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
CORRECTIONS CORP: Judge Denies Bid to Exclude Report Exhibits
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Updates Stuffed Chicken Products Recall
CYBER-STRUCT: Bankruptcy Judge Won't Hear Subcontractors' Suit

DANIELS NORELLI: Faces "Korn" Suit in N.Y. Over FDCPA Violation
DELTA AIRLINES: Faces Suits Over Alleged Collusion on Airfares
DIAMANTE LLC: Ark. Remands Suit to Determine Validity of Deal
DOUBLE INSIGHT: Recalls Pressure Cookers Due to Shock Hazard
DRESS BARN: Judge Narrows Claims in "Lamkins" Suit

EL DORADO: Sued Over Failure to Design Blind-Accessible Website
ENTERGY OPERATIONS: "Webb" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
EQT PRODUCTION: First-Filed Rule Does Not Apply to "Barr" Suit
EXETER FINANCE: "Goldowsky" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
FERRELLGAS INC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Penalties

FOCUS RECEIVABLES: Sued in Cal. Over Automated Telephone Calls
GIANT TIGER: Recalls BBQ Meats Party Packs Due to Wheat
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Recalls Biotene Dry Mouth Toothpastes
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Recalls Sensodyne Whitening Products
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Recalls Sensodyne Rapid Relief Products

GLOBAL CONTACT: Oregon Judge Orders Parties to Show Cause
GLOBAL CREDIT: Faces "Levy" Suit in N.Y. Over FDCPA Violation
HEALTHCARE PARTNER: Cal. Ct. App. Upholds Abstention Doctrine
HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL: Defendant Gets New Trial After Appeal
INTEREXCHANGE: Au Pair Wage Class Action Pending in Colorado

JEWELSCENT INC: Sued in California Over Illegal Lottery Operation
JPMORGAN CHASE: Derivative Suit by Asbestos Workers Fund Tossed
LIBERTY MUTUAL: CHIS Lawsuit Dismissed; Discovery Bid Denied
LRR ENERGY: Faces "Krieger" Suit Over Proposed Vanguard Merger
LUMIX HIBACHI: Faces "Chen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

MANAGEMENT & TRAINING: Judge Rejects Suit Over Valley Fever
MARIO'S WELDING: Faces "Flint" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MCKESSON CORP: Judge Won't Compel Document Production in TCPA Suit
MIAMI, FL: Rulings Over Ad Valorem Taxes Upheld
MICHAEL'S NEIGHBORHOOD: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, Suit Says

MILLENNIUM RESOURCES: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
MOBIL EXPLORATION: Defendant's Third Bid to Dismiss Suit Granted
MONEY STORE: Judge Rejects Bid for New Trial in "Mazzei" Suit
MONROE COUNTY, NY: Judge Narrows Claims in Suit over Roll Call
NEMET MOTORS: Faces "Singh" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

NEW JERSEY: Court Rules in Race Bias Suit v. Educ Department
NIBCO INC: Judge Narrows Claim in "Cole" Suit
NORTH CAROLINA: Court Tosses Inmate's Complaint
NYC SABLE: "Rosendo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
OCWEN LOAN: Faces "Denham" Suit Over Inaccurate Consumer Reports

OCWEN LOAN: W.D. Wash. Judge Tosses "Bess" Suit
PENNSYLVANIA: Judge Tosses Inmate Suit Over Street Time Credit
PHIL & TEDS: Recalls Seat Liners Due to Chemical Hazard
PHILIP GUTWORTH: Settlement in "Weissman" Case Has Final OK
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces "Stein" Suit Over FDCPA Violation

PRIZE CANDLE: Sued in California Over Illegal Lottery Operation
RAPID MORTGAGE: Faces "Oakes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SHO-ME POWER: Judge Awards Legal Fees to Class Counsel
SIVEM PHARMACEUTICALS: Recalls Telmisartan HCTZ Tablets
SPARTAN: Recalls 2008 Gladiator Models Due to Defective Tire

SPECIALIZED CANADA: Recalls Pedal Axle Extenders
STRASNER SAFETY: "Cervantez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
TEVA PHARMA: Sept. 29 Nexium Settlement Approval Hearing Set
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Sued Over Failure to Make Benefit Payments
US AIRWAYS: Judge Trims "Sheffer" Suit Over Unpaid Wages

VIVENDI SA: Settlement, Fees Approved in Activision Suit
VONS COMPANIES: Removed "Peron" Class Suit to S.D. California
WILSON: Recalls 2006 Grain Trailers Due to Crash Risk
WPX ENERGY: Judge Won't Reconsider Rulings in Landowners' Suit
XTO ENERGY: Faces "Marburger" Suit Over Alleged Breach of Leases

ZHONGPIN INC: Del. Supreme Court Ruled on Shareholders' Suit

* Gibson Dunn Attorney to Challenge Fast Food Sector Wage Hike
* Worker Classification Class Actions "On-Demand" This Summer



                            *********


3D SYSTEMS: Kendall Law Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Kendall Law Group, led by former federal judge Joe Kendall,
announces that a federal securities fraud class action lawsuit has
been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina Rock Hill Division against the officers and directors of
3D Systems Corporation DDD, for securities violations by allegedly
making materially false and misleading statements about 3D's
business prospects.

According to the complaint, on October 29, 2013, 3D Systems
announced it was tripling its manufacturing capacity over the next
12 months and accelerating the development of additional direct
metal 3D printer models. It also touted the strategic value of the
company's recent acquisitions and said it planned to quadruple
direct metal printing sales over the next 12 to 18 months.
Following the announcement, 3D stock soared, reaching $80/share on
November 18, 2013. However, the complaint alleges that the company
had no basis to represent that it would be able to accomplish its
capacity and sales goals. And, many of the company's acquisitions
were not strategically acquired and would require significant
additional investment to integrate into 3D.

The complaint further alleges that 3D's wrongful acts and
omissions caused an unrealistically positive assessment of the
company's financial condition, causing its shares to be traded at
artificially inflated prices. 3D's inflated share price allowed
company officials to receive enormous profits from the sale of 3D
stock. For example, throughout the class period, company
executives sold over $11 million worth of their shares, and on May
29, 2014, 3D offered 5,950,000 shares of its stock, netting
approximately $300 million. On October 22, 2014, 3D revealed
disappointing preliminary third quarter results and guided lower
full year revenue and earnings. The company blamed its poor
results on capacity constraints for its direct metal printers. On
this news, 3D shares plummeted over 15% on high volume.

Concerned shareholders who would like more information about their
legal rights and potential legal remedies can contact Jamie McKey
at 877-744-3728 or jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com. There is no cost or
obligation to you. Kendall Law Group was founded by a former
federal judge, includes a former United States Attorney,
prosecutors, and securities lawyers who are experienced in
nationwide complex securities litigation.


ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE: Faces "Akselrod" Suit Over FDCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mendel Akselrod, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Accounts Receivable Management, Inc., Case
No. 1:15-cv-04134 (E.D.N.Y., July 14, 2015), is brought against
the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
      ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
      483 Chestnut Street
      Cedarhurst, NY 11516
      Telephone: (516) 791-4400
      Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
      E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


AIR FLORIDA: "Rigal" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Back Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Angel A. Rigal, Aristides Perdomo Silva, and similarly situated
individuals v. Air Florida Heating & Cooling Inc. and Jeffrey
Scott Hophan, Case No. 1:15-cv-22635-MGC (S.D. Fla., July 14,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid back wages, and an additional equal
amount as liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Air Florida Heating & Cooling Inc. is a Florida corporation that
offers heating and AC installation, maintenance and repair.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary Andrew Costales, Esq.
      GARY A. COSTALES, PA
      1200 Brickell Ave, Suite 1230
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 375-9510
      Facsimile: (305) 375-9511
      E-mail: costalesgary@hotmail.com


AIRMEDIA GROUP: August 24 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, a national investor-rights law
firm, advises investors of the August 24, 2015 lead plaintiff
deadline in the securities fraud class action lawsuit filed
against AirMedia Group, Inc. ("AirMedia" or "the Company"). If you
have losses in your purchases of AirMedia American Depository
Receipts ("ADRs") during the Class Period contact Hagens Berman
Partner Reed Kathrein, who is leading the firm's investigation.

The lawsuit, pending in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, is filed on behalf of investors who
purchased AirMedia ADRs  between April 15, 2015 and June 15, 2015,
inclusive, (the "Class Period"). Although no class has been
certified in this case, the deadline to move for the position of
lead plaintiff in the case is August 24, 2015. You do not need to
move for lead plaintiff to be a member of the Class or to
participate in any recovery.

AirMedia operates public space advertising platforms in the
People's Republic of China. On April 7, 2015 the Company's ADRs
traded below $2 per ADR, valuing the Company at approximately $100
million. The lawsuit alleges that during the Class Period,
Defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the
purported sale of a 5% interest in AirMedia's advertising
subsidiary, AirMedia Group Co., Ltd. ("AM Advertising").
AirMedia's announcement of the sale on April 7, 2015, coupled with
additional statements made by Defendants led investors to believe
that the advertising subsidiary was valued at $500 million. As a
result of these statements, the Complaint alleges that the
Company's ADRs traded at artificially inflated prices, reaching a
high of $7.70 on June 15, 2015.

Also on June 15, 2015, the Company issued a press release
announcing that it had entered into a definitive agreement to sell
a 75% equity interest in AM Advertising to a different buyer for
$344.4 million, significantly less than the purported value the
Company had claimed the subsidiary was worth during the Class
Period. On this news, the price of AirMedia ADRs fell more than
50% over the next two days.

If you were negatively impacted by your investment in AirMedia
ADRs  "between April 15, 2015 and June 15, 2015, and would like to
learn more about this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a
lead plaintiff, please contact us for your no-cost evaluation.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
AirMedia should consider their options to help in the
investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program.
Under the new SEC whistleblower program, whistleblowers who
provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30
percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more
information, call Reed Kathrein at (510) 725-3000 or email
AMCN@hbsslaw.com.

                         About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP is an investor-rights class-action
law firm headquartered in Seattle, Washington with offices in nine
cities. The firm represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and
consumers in complex litigation. More about the firm and its
successes can be found at www.hbsslaw.com. Read the firm's
Securities Newsletter at http://www.hb-securities.com/newsletter.
The firm's blog is located at www.meaningfuldisclosure.com For the
latest news from Hagens Berman, visit
http://www.hbsslaw.com/newsroomor follow us on Twitter at
@hagensberman.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Grimes" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
James Grimes and Michael Coffey, Jr. v. American Airlines Group
Inc., American Airlines, Inc., Delta Air Lines, Inc., Southwest
Airlines Co., United Continental Holdings, Inc., and United
Airlines, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-03269-DMR (N.D. Cal., July 14,
2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful conspiracy to
fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the price of domestic airline
tickets, specifically by constraining the seating capacity on
flights within the United States, limiting the number of flights
offered within the United States, and limiting the transparency of
pricing information available to domestic airline ticket consumers
regarding flights within the United States.

The Defendants operate the largest airline companies in the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lesley E. Weaver, Esq.
      BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
      492 9th Street, Suite 260
      Oakland, CA 94607
      Telephone: (415) 968-8999
      Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
      E-mail: lweaver@blockesq.com

         - and -

      Whitney E. Street, Esq.
      Erica G. Langsen, Esq.
      BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
      155 Federal Street, Suite 400
      Telephone: (617) 398-5600
      Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
      E-mail: wstreet@blockesq.com
              elangsen@blockesq.com

         - and -

      Peter Safirstein, Esq.
      Roger A. Sachar Jr., Esq.
      Domenico Minerva, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN
      28 West 44th Street, Suite 2001
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 564-1637
      Facsimile: (212) 564-1656
      E-mail: PSafirstein@MorganSecuritiesLaw.com
              RSachar@MorganSecuritiesLaw.com
              DMinerva@Forthepeople.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Price" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Price and all others similarly situated v. American
Airlines, Inc., Delta Airlines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., and
United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01126-CKK (D.D.C., July
15, 2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful conspiracy
to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the price of domestic
airline tickets, specifically by constraining the seating capacity
on flights within the United States, limiting the number of
flights offered within the United States, and limiting the
transparency of pricing information available to domestic airline
ticket consumers regarding flights within the United States.

The Defendants operate the largest airline companies in the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven N. Berk, Esq.
      BERK LAW PLLC
      2002 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 100
      Washington, DC 20036
      Telephone: (202) 232-7550
      Facsimile: (202) 232-7556
      E-mail: steven@berklawdc.com

         - and -

      Howard Langer, Esq.
      Peter Leckman, Esq.
      LANGER GROGAN & DIVER, P.C.
      1717 Arch Street, Suite 4130
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 320-5660
      Facsimile: (215) 320-5703
      E-mail: hlanger@langergrogan.com
              pleckman@langergrogan.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Schumacher" Suit Over Airline Tickets
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Schumacher and Larissa D. Kosits v. American Airlines
Group Inc., American Airlines, Inc., Delta Air Lines, Inc.,
Southwest Airlines Co., United Continental Holdings, Inc., and
United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-06176 (N.D. Ill., July 14,
2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful conspiracy to
fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the price of domestic airline
tickets, specifically by constraining the seating capacity on
flights within the United States, limiting the number of flights
offered within the United States, and limiting the transparency of
pricing information available to domestic airline ticket consumers
regarding flights within the United States.

The Defendants operate the largest airline companies in the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven A. Hart, Esq.
      Robert J. McLaughlin, Esq.
      Brian H. Eldridge, Esq.
      SEGAL McCAMBRIDGE SINGER & MAHONEY, LTD.
      233 South Wacker Drive
      Willis Tower-Suite 5500
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Telephone: (312) 645-7800
      Facsimile: (312) 645-7711
      E-mail: shart@smsm.com
              rmclaughlin@smsm.com
              beldridge@smsm.com

         - and -

      W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
      Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
      100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Telephone: (612) 339-6900
      Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
      E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com
              hmsilton@locklaw.com

         - and -

      Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq.
      PRITZKER LEVINE LLP
      180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1390
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (415) 692-0772, Ext. 1001
      Facsimile: (415) 366-6110
      E-mail: ecp@pritzkerlevine.com

         - and -

      George R. Corey, Esq.
      Amanda L. Riddle, Esq.
      COREY, LUZAICH, DE GHETALDI, NASTARI, & RIDDLE LLP
      700 El Camino Real
      Millbrae, CA 94030
      Telephone: (650) 871-5666
      Facsimile: (650) 871-4144
      E-mail: grc@coreylaw.com
              alr@coreylaw.com


AMERICAN CARGO: Fails to Pay Inspectors OT Wages, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Wagner, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. American Cargo Assurance, LLC, Case No.
4:15-cv-02022 (S.D. Tex., July 15, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay the Plaintiff and its other
Inspectors appropriate overtime wages when they worked more than
40 hours in a workweek as required by the Fair Labor Standards.

American Cargo Assurance, LLC is a service company that provides
inspection, sampling, and inventory control for petroleum and
petrochemical products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert R Debes Jr., Esq.
      SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
      11 Greenway Plaza, Ste 1515
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 621-2277
      Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
      E-mail: bdebes@eeoc.net


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Sept. 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC. ERISA LITIGATION II
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: All Actions

Master File No.: 08-CV-5722 (LTS) (DCF)

TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE FOLLOWING CLASS:

To: All persons: (a) who were participants in or beneficiaries of
the American International Group, Inc. Incentive Savings Plan and
the American General Agents' and Managers' Thrift Plan (the
"Plans") at any time from August 7, 2007 through May 1, 2009 (the
"Class Period", and (b) whose Plan accounts included direct or
indirect investments in AIG stock and/or the AIG Stock Fund.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. THIS IS A COURT ORDERED LEGAL
NOTICE. THIS IS NOT A SOLICITATION.

A settlement has been preliminarily approved by the federal court
in a consolidated class action lawsuit against American
International Group, Inc. ("AIG"), and certain individuals,
including certain current and former employees, officers and
directors of AIG, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") in
connection with the above-referenced Plans.  This Settlement will
provide for a payment of $40 million (less certain amounts
described in the Settlement Agreement, including expenses
associated with Class Notice, attorney's fees and expenses, case
contribution awards, any taxes and other costs related to the
administration of the Settlement Fund and Implementation of the
Plan of Allocation) for alleged losses to the Plans, which will
then be allocated to the accounts of Class members who had
portions of their Plan accounts invested in AIG stock and/or the
AIG Stock Fund.

If you qualify, you may receive a portion of such allocation.  You
do not need to send in a claim or take any action unless you
object to the Settlement.  The United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York authorized this Notice.

THE COURT WILL HOLD A HEARING AT 9:30 A.M. ON SEPTEMBER 18, 2015
TO DECIDE WHETHER TO APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT.

WHO IS INCLUDED IN THE SETTLEMENT?

If you were a participant in or beneficiary of one of the Plans at
any time during the Class Period, and your Plan account included
investments in AIG stock, or if you are a beneficiary, alternate
payee, executor, administrator, Representative, or Successor-In-
Interest to any such participant or beneficiary, you are a member
of the Class (a "Class member"); provided, however that the Class
shall not include any of the Individual Defendants, or any of the
Individual Defendants' Immediate Family, beneficiaries, alternate
payees, Representatives or Successors-In-Interest, except for
Immediate Family, beneficiaries, alternate payees, Representatives
or Successors-In-Interest, who themselves were participants in the
Plans, who shall be considered members of the Settlement Class
only with respect of their own Plan accounts.

WHAT IS THIS CASE ABOUT

The Named Plaintiffs in the case claim that the Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by continuing to allow
the investment of the Plans' assets in AIG stock and/or the AIG
Stock Fund, when that investment was allegedly imprudent, and by
other related acts, during the Class Period.  All of the
Defendants deny they did anything wrong.  The Court has not ruled
in favor of any party.  The Plaintiffs and the Defendants agreed
to the Settlement to ensure a resolution and avoid the costs and
risks of litigation with respect to the claims against the
Defendants.  The Defendants are AIG and certain individuals
currently or formerly affiliated with AIG.  Their names are listed
in the Settlement Agreement.

WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE?

A Settlement Fund of $40 million will be created to be divided
among eligible Settlement Class members, after payment of certain
amounts described in the Settlement Agreement, including expenses
associated with Class Notice, attorneys' fees and expenses, case
contribution awards for Named Plaintiffs, any taxes and other
costs related to the administration of the Settlement Fund and
implementation of the Plan of Allocation, as the Court may allow.
The Settlement Agreement, available at the Web site identified
below, describes the details of the proposed Settlement.  Your
share of the net Settlement funds, if any, will be based on your
proportionate share of the losses alleged to have been suffered by
the Plans as a result of the acquisition and holding of AIG stock
during the Class Period.  The Settlement also releases all claims
made against the Defendants in the Action.

HOW DO YOU RECEIVE A PAYMENT?

If you are a Class member and are entitled to a share of the
Settlement Fund according to the Class Action Settlement
Agreement, you will not be required to do anything to receive a
payment.  Payment will be made directly to your account or to an
account established for you if you no longer have an account.  You
will be notified of this account along with further instructions
about how to access your portion of the Settlement Fund.

WHAT FEES AND EXPENSE ARE BEING SOUGHT BY THE ATTORNEYS?

The lawyers who have prosecuted this case for the Plaintiffs and
the Settlement Class on a contingent fee basis will apply to the
Court for fees of up to one-third of the Settlement amount, plus
reimbursement of the expenses they have paid out of their own
pockets to advance the case.  The Court must approve any fees and
expenses to the attorneys.

WHAT ARE MY OPTIONS - CAN I OBJECT TO OR OPT OUT OF THE
SETTLEMENT?

The Court certified the case as a "non opt out" class action.
Therefore, you cannot "opt out" or exclude yourself from the
Settlement Class, and you will be bound by any judgments or orders
that are entered in the Action.  In addition, if the Settlement is
approved, you will be deemed to have released all of the
Defendants and the other Released Parties from all claims that
were or could have been asserted in the Action, other than your
right to obtain relief provided to you, if any, by the Settlement.

However, you do have the right to object to the Settlement,
Plaintiffs' Counsel's request for attorneys' fees and expenses,
case contribution awards for Named Plaintiffs, or the Plan of
Allocation by writing to the Court.

The detailed Notice of Proposed Settlement, available at
www.berdonclaims.com, explains how to object.  The Court will hold
a hearing on this case on September 18, 2015 at 9:30 a.m., to
consider whether to approve the Settlement and a request by
Plaintiffs' Counsel: Keller Rohrback L.L.P.; Wolf Popper LLP;
Squitieri & Fearon LLP; and Harwood Feffer LLP, representing all
Class members, for attorneys' fees and litigation expenses, for
case contribution awards to the Named Plaintiffs, and for approval
of expenses associated with Class Notice, taxes, and other costs
related to the administration of the Settlement Fund and
implementation of the Plan of Allocation. If approved, these
amounts will be paid from the Settlement Fund.  If you object to
the Settlement, you may file a written objection with the Court,
with delivery to Plaintiffs' Counsel, such that it is received by
both no later than August 28, 2015, as detailed further in the
Notice of Proposed Settlement.  If you file a written objection
with the Court, you may ask to appear at the hearing, but it is
not required.  At the hearing on September 18, 2015, the Court
will consider whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate.  If there are objections, the Court will consider them.
If you do not want to object to the Settlement, you do not have to
do anything.

HOW DO I GET MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT?

The Settlement includes a number of other important details,
including, but not limited to, provisions relating to: (1)
releases of claims by the Class; and (2) how the Settlement amount
will be allocated among accounts created for eligible Class
members.  Details of the Settlement are contained in the Notice of
Proposed Settlement, which has been mailed to all Class members,
and is available at www.berdonclaims.com

A toll free number (1-800-766-3330) and e-mail address
(www.berdonclaims.com, click on "Contact Us") have also been set
up to assist in any answering any questions Class members may have
regarding the Settlement or their rights.  You may also contact
Plaintiffs' Counsel in writing at:

          Robert I. Harwood, Esq.
          HARWOOD FEFFER LLP
          488 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Fax: (212) 753-3630

Please direct any questions to the toll-free number (1-800-766-
3330) and e-mail address (www.berdonclaims.com click on "Contact
Us") established by Plaintiffs' Counsel, and not to the Court,
AIG, or any other entity or person.


AMERICAN NATIONAL: Does Not Properly Pay Assessors, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Warman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. American National Standards Institute, Case No. 1:15-
cv-05486-RA-FM (S.D.N.Y., July 14, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay its Assessors for training hours,
minimum wages and overtime pay.

American National Standards Institute is a New York corporation
that oversees the creation, promulgation and use of thousands of
norms and guidelines that impact businesses in numerous
industries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd Seth Garber, Esq.
      FINKELSTEIN BLANKINSHIP, FREI- PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
      1311 Mamaroneck Avenue, Suite 220
      White Plains, NY 10605
      Telephone: (914) 298-3281
      Facsimile: (914) 824-1561
      E-mail: tgarber@fbfglaw.com


AMSHER COLLECTION: Faces "Schwyhart" Suit Over FDCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Schwyhart, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Amsher Collection Services Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
01175-WMA (N.D. Ala., July 13, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gina DeRosier Greenwald, Esq.
      GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
      5550 Glades Road Suite 500
      Boca Raton, FL 33431
      Telephone: (561) 826-5477
      Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
      E-mail: ggreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com


ARIZONA: Goldwater Inst. Sues Over Indian Child Welfare Act
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starlee Coleman, writing for Prescott News, reported that the
Goldwater Institute will launch a new project to reform the Indian
Child Welfare Act and similar state laws that give abused and
neglected Native American children fewer rights and protections
than other American children. A major part of the project will be
a federal class action lawsuit.

"When an abused child is removed from his or her home and placed
in foster care or made available for adoption, judges are required
to make a decision about where the child will live based on the
child's best interest. Except for Native American children. Courts
are bound by federal law to disregard a Native American child's
best interest and place the child in a home with other Native
Americans, even if it is not in his or her best interest," said
Darcy Olsen, president of the Goldwater Institute. "We want
federal and state laws to be changed to give abused and neglected
Native American children the same protections that are given to
all other American children: the right to be placed in a safe home
based on their best interests, not based on their race."

On July 7, the Goldwater Institute will file a federal class
action lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of core
provisions of the federal Indian Child Welfare Act. The same day,
the Institute will release an investigative report that documents
how federal law leaves Native American children with fewer
protections under the law than all other American children, and
the serious consequences that have resulted from this unequal
treatment. Recommendations for changes to state and federal law
will also be announced.

Media is invited to a press briefing that will formally announce
the details of the lawsuit, release the investigation, and policy
recommendations, and screen an 8-minute original documentary film.
The briefing will feature Dr. William B. Allen, the former
chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.


ASTRAZENECA PHARMA: To Pay $55.5-Mil. to Resolve "Streck"
---------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, P.C., a full-spectrum class action and complex
civil litigation law firm with one of the largest and most
successful whistleblower practices in the U.S, joined co-counsel
Faruqi and Faruqi, LLP in settling three separate but related
whistleblower lawsuits against pharmaceutical manufacturers
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Cephalon, Inc., and Biogen, Inc.,
for a total of $55.5 million, plus statutory fees.  Under the
agreements, AstraZeneca will pay the largest sum, $46.5 million.
Cephalon will pay $7.5 million, and Biogen will pay $1.5 million.
The case, pending in federal court in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, is captioned U.S. ex rel. Ronald Streck v.
AstraZeneca, LP, et al., C.A. No. 08-5135.

The law firms represent whistleblower Ronald Streck, who alleged
that the companies defrauded the federal and state governments by
under-reporting their Medicaid rebate obligations.  Medicaid is a
joint federal and state program that primarily serves the poor and
the elderly, America's most vulnerable citizens.  Mr. Streck
became aware of the alleged fraud while working in the
pharmaceutical distribution industry in the mid-2000's.  He filed
suit in 2008.  With these three settlements, and the years of
hotly-contested litigation that led to them, Mr. Streck has helped
changed the way pharmaceutical manufacturers report their prices
to government authorities.

Mr. Streck brought suit under the United States Civil False Claims
Act ("FCA").  The FCA, also called "Lincoln's Law," was signed by
President Abraham Lincoln in 1863. Amendments in 1986 made it the
primary weapon of the United States against fraud and abuse by
government contractors. Under the FCA, a private whistleblower can
bring a lawsuit in the name of the government.  After an FCA
lawsuit is filed, the government can either intervene in the suit
and take over the litigation, or it can decline to intervene, in
which case the whistleblower and his legal team can pursue the
case on behalf of the government.  In these three cases, the
government declined to intervene in 2011, so Mr. Streck and his
two law firms, Berger & Montague and Faruqi & Faruqi, litigated
the cases until the settlements were reached.

Mr. Streck's lawsuit alleged that the three pharmaceutical
manufacturers treated millions of dollars in payments to
wholesalers as "discounts," when in fact the payments were for
bona fide services rendered.  By treating the payments as
discounts, the manufacturers reported lower average manufacturer
prices, which consequently led them to pay less in rebates to
state Medicaid programs.  Mr. Streck's suit was the first of its
kind, in that the alleged fraud scheme had never been revealed in
any prior lawsuit or government enforcement operation.

The settlements marked the sixth declined case in the past year
that Berger & Montague has successfully litigated on behalf of the
federal and state governments.  Daniel R. Miller, a shareholder at
Berger & Montague and one of the lawyers litigating the cases on
behalf of Mr. Streck, explained the changing landscape of False
Claims Act litigation: "In years past, if the government declined
a whistleblower's case, it often spelled the end of the
litigation.  But more recently, well-equipped law firms like
Berger & Montague have been successfully litigating these cases
against some of the nation's largest companies.  The results for
the taxpayers speak for themselves."  Berger & Montague
shareholder Joy Clairmont, also an integral part of Mr. Streck's
legal team, continued: "No company, no matter how large, is above
the law.  These cases prove that individuals who step forward as
whistleblowers really can make a difference."

Mr. Streck's lawsuit is not over.  His suit makes similar
allegations against pharmaceutical manufacturer Genzyme
Corporation, and the case against Genzyme continues in litigation.
Once that matter is concluded, Mr. Streck plans to appeal the
trial court's decision to dismiss a related series of allegations
against an even larger group of pharmaceutical manufacturers.

Berger & Montague's whistleblower practice group, which has
recovered well over $1 billion for federal and state governments
over the course of the last decade, is committed to filing and
litigating qui tam lawsuits under the federal and state False
Claims Acts, the SEC whistleblower program, and the IRS
whistleblower program.  Todd Collins, a member of the firm's
Management Committee who is also actively involved in Mr. Streck's
case, stated that the settlements "underscore Berger & Montague's
commitment to representing whistleblowers, and our intention to
maintain our Qui Tam Practice Group as a major force in U.S.
whistleblower representation."


AVALANCHE BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Sued over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Mondanaro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Avalanche Biotechnologies, Inc., Thomas W. Chalberg,
Jr., PH.D., and Linda C. Bain, Case No. 5:15-cv-03281-RMW (N.D.
Cal., July 14, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects, in connection with the Company's initial public
offering.

Avalanche Biotechnologies, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company
purportedly committed to improving or preserving the sight of
people suffering from blinding eye diseases with an unmet medical
need.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
      Casey E. Sadler, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
      E-mail: info@glancylaw.com
              rprongay@glancylaw.com
              csadler@glancylaw.com


BAC HOME: Judge Narrows Claims in "Fowler Suit"
-----------------------------------------------
District Judge Ronnie L. White of the Eastern District of
Missouri, Eastern Division, granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss in the case MIMI FOWLER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, L.P., KOZENY & McCUBBIN,
L.C. and KOZENY LENDERS 1-100, Defendants, NO. 4:14-CV-1127 RLW
(E.D. MO.)

Defendant BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. and Kozeny Lenders 1-100
(Lenders) are in the business of making, purchasing, or
participating in home loans in the State of Missouri.  Lenders are
represented by Kozeny & McCubbin, L.C. (trustee) as outside
counsel. Lenders appointed Kozeny as successor trustee under their
deeds of trust. Each lender and the trustee, as agent for the
lender, charge the borrower with the attorney's fees for trustee's
legal services incurred in initiating foreclosure on the deed of
trust.  As a general business practice, lender, or trustee on
lender's behalf, provide borrowers with a Reinstatement Quote that
requires the borrower to pay attorney's fees to avoid foreclosure
and reinstate the borrower's mortgage with lender.

Plaintiff Mimi Fowler borrowed from lenders and on December 15,
2010, the trustee published a notice of foreclosure sale of
Fowler's property located at 817 Tiffin, St. Louis County,
Missouri. On December 17, 2010, BAC sent Fowler a Reinstatement
Quote, which required payment of attorney's fees of $520 to
reinstate her mortgage. On December 29, 2010, Fowler paid
$9,584.88, including attorney's fees, to avoid foreclosure of her
property.

Fowler brought an action against trustee and lenders to recover
for herself and for all others similarly situated all attorney's
fees paid by her and members of the class to trustee and lenders.
Plaintiff contends that it is unlawful for lenders and trustee, as
attorney and agent for lenders, to charge or collect from the
borrowers in the class any compensation for trustee's services in
foreclosure in excess of the statutory commission permitted under
Missouri law.  Fowler argues that she properly alleges a claim
under Missouri law because Kozeny collected a Foreclosure
Attorney/Trustee Fee in the amount of $520.

Fowler alleges that compensation of trustees is governed by
Section 443.360, Compensation of trustees under trust deeds. In
Count II, Fowler argues that Kozeny's dual role as BAC's counsel
and successor trustee under the deed of trust gives rise to a
conflict of interest and that Kozeny failed to disclose to her
that it was acting as both trustee and BAC's counsel and Kozeny
failed to obtain a written conflict waiver from her. In Count III
Fowler alleges a violation of Missouri Merchandising Practices Act
(MMPA), but she moves to dismiss, without prejudice to allow her
to replead her claim.

Defendants filed motions to dismiss all three counts of Fowler's
complaint.

Judge White granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion
to dismiss. Counts I and II are dismissed with prejudice while
Count III is dismissed without prejudice.  The Court, however,
permitted the Plaintiff to file an amended complaint.

A copy of Judge White's memorandum and order dated May 26, 2015,
is available at http://is.gd/IFpwhafrom Leagle.com.

Mimi Fowler, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan F. Andres, Esq. --
at JONATHAN F. ANDRES, P.C.

BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey
S. Russell -- jsrussell@bryancave.com -- Michele R. Gardner --
michele.gardner@bryancave.com -- Amy J. Thompson --
athompson@bryancave.com -- at BRYAN CAVE LLP

Kozeny & McCubbin, L.C., Defendant, represented by Ira L. Blank --
at THE ENTERPRISE LAW GROUP, LLC; Michele R. Gardner --
michele.gardner@bryancave.com -- at BRYAN CAVE LLP

Kozeny Lenders 1-100, Defendant, represented by Michele R. Gardner
-- michele.gardner@bryancave.com -- at BRYAN CAVE LLP


BAUMGART CAFE: Faces "Ha" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Siu Ching Ha, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated v.
Baumgart Cafe of Livingston d/b/a Baumgart's Cafe, Baumgart
Restaurant, Inc. d/b/a Baumgart's Cafe, Baumgart's Edgewater Corp.
d/b/a Baumgart's Cafe, Baumgart of Ridgewood, Inc. d/b/a
Baumgart's Cafe, Steve Wu, Marsha Wu, Gou-Fu Wang a/k/a Sam Wang,
John Yuan, and Zong Hou Xie, Case No. 2:15-cv-05530-ES-MAH
(D.N.J., July 14, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum wage and overtime compensation for all
hours worked over 40 each workweek.

The Defendants are engaged in a restaurant business with a
principal address at 4175 Town Center Way, Livingston, NJ 07039.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan Deperio Hernandez, Esq.
      TROY LAW PLLC
      41-25 Kissena Blvd, Suite 119
      Flushing, NY 11355
      Telephone: (718) 762-1324
      Facsimile: (718) 762-1342
      E-mail: jondhernandez@gmail.com


BREADS OF THE WORLD: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Woods, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Breads of the World, LLC, d/b/a Panera Bread, and Panera, LLC,
Case No. 1:15-cv-00464-SJD (S.D. Ohio, July 15, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a bakery within the State of Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Frederick M. Bean, Esq.
      Brian D. Spitz
      THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC
      4568 Mayfield Road, Ste. 102
      South Euclid, OH 44121
      Telephone: (216) 291-4744
      Facsimile: (216) 291-5744
      E-mail: fred.bean@spitzlawfirm.com
              Brian.Spitz@SpitzLawFirm.com


BROOKLYN UNION: Gas Customers Not Covered Under FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------
Joel Stashenko, writing for Law.com, reports that the alleged
theft of unmetered natural gas is not a "debt" under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) to those seeking repayment, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled on July 21.

The determination in Beauvoir v. Israel, 14-3794-cv, was the
circuit's first on the question of whether money owed as a result
of an alleged theft represents a debt under FDCPA.

By ruling it did not, Judges Jose Cabranes, Rosemary Pooler and
Christopher Droney said they reached the same conclusion as other
circuit courts, including the Third Circuit (Zimmerman v. HBO
Affiliate Grp., 834 F.2d 1163 [1987]), and the Ninth Circuit
(Fleming v. Pickard, 581 F.3d 922 [2009]).

The plaintiffs, Gary and Husbene Beauvoir, had argued that
collection efforts by Manhattan attorney David Israel on behalf of
the Brooklyn Union Gas Co. and its parent, National Grid New York,
were contrary to the FDCPA.  The Beauvoirs contended that Israel's
April 2012 letter informing them that he was seeking repayment did
not mention the 30-day period for disputing the collection effort
as required under the FDCPA, among other deficiencies.

According to a suit filed by Israel in Brooklyn Supreme Court
seeking repayment, the Beauvoirs illegally appropriated natural
gas worth $28,305 at the Brooklyn building where they lived from
2005 to 2011.

The Second Circuit ruling, written by Cabranes, was not concerned
with the question of whether the Beauvoirs stole the natural gas,
just of their challenge to Israel's efforts to collect payment.

Levi Huebner of Brooklyn represented the Beauvoirs.

Matthew Bizzaro, partner at L'Abbate, Balkan, Colavita & Contini
in Garden City, represented Israel.

The ruling upheld a determination by Eastern District Judge
Frederic Block in August 2014.


CARING FUNERAL: Bid to Arbitrate Denied on Appeal
-------------------------------------------------
Presiding Justice Kathleen E. O'Leary of the Court of Appeals of
California, Fourth District, affirmed a trial court order that
denied Caring Funeral Service, Inc.'s petition to compel
arbitration in a lawsuit filed by its employee.

Caring Funeral owns and operates many funeral homes throughout
Southern California. In June 2011 it hired Zackary Lopez as
funeral manager until the date of his voluntary resignation in
April 2013. While he was employed, Lopez was given a 27-page
employee handbook which contains an arbitration clause, and was
required to sign the pages of the handbook if he wanted to remain
employed.

Lopez filed a class action complaint alleging 11 causes of action
relating to violations relating to the Labor Code and the welfare
commission wage orders. He alleged that Caring Funeral failed to
pay regular and overtime wages, pay minimum wages, provide meal
periods, provide rest periods, make timely payments, provide
itemized wage statements, maintain records, pay for time spent on-
call, and pay reimbursement for business expenses. The complaint
also contained a cause of action alleging unfair competition (Bus.
& Prof. Code, Section 17200 et seq.) and a representative claim
under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) (Lab. Code,
Sections 2698 et seq.) on behalf of all aggrieved employees.

Caring Funeral responded by filing a petition to compel the
arbitration of Lopez's individual claims and sought to have the
class allegations dismissed.  Caring Funeral alleged its handbook
contained a binding arbitration provision governed by the Federal
Arbitration Act (FAA).

Lopez filed an opposition, arguing the arbitration agreement was
governed by California law, not the FAA, which prohibits the
arbitration of claims to collect unpaid wages. Lopez noted PAGA
claims also cannot be compelled to arbitration and the agreement
was unconscionable. The court denied the petition to compel
arbitration.  Caring Funeral appealed.

The appealed case is, ZACKARY LOPEZ, Plaintiff and Respondent, v.
CARING FUNERAL SERVICE, INC., et al., Defendants and Appellants,
NO. G050862 (Cal. Ct. App.)  A copy of Presiding Justice O'Leary's
unpublished opinion dated June 2, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/1G4llAfrom Leagle.com.

Frank M. Liberatore -- LiberatF@jacksonlewis.com -- Sherry L.
Swieca -- SwiecaS@jacksonlewis.com -- Shareef S. Farag --
Shareef.Farag@jacksonlewis.com -- at Jackson Lewis, for Defendants
and Appellants

For Plaintiff and Respondent:

Brian J. Mankin, Esq.
Marisa L. Kautz, Esq.
FERNANDEZ & LAUBY
4590 Allstate Drive
Riverside, CA 92501
Telephone: 951-321-6009
Facsimile: 951-320-1445

The Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District panel consists
of Presiding Justice Kathleen E. O'Leary and Justices Eileen C.
Moore and David A. Thompson.


CEDARS OF CHAPEL HILL: Judgment in "Wilner" Suit Vacated
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sanford L. Steelman, Jr. of the Court of Appeals of North
Carolina vacated and remanded to the trial court the appealed case
JONATHAN WILNER, et al., and ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiffs, v. THE CEDARS OF CHAPEL HILL, LLC, et al., Defendants,
NO. COA14-380 (N.C. Ct. App.)

The Cedars of Chapel Hill, LLC is a continuing care retirement
community located in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Residents at the
Cedars purchase individual condominium units within the community,
and pay an additional membership fee. The fee is calculated as 10%
of the gross purchase price of a housing unit, and is paid at
closing as part of the purchase price. If a resident inherits the
unit or receives it as a gift, the resident pays the fee,
calculated as 10% of the unit's fair market value. If the unit is
resold, the 10% fee is deducted from the gross sales price and
paid at closing.

The payment of this fee is clearly set forth in the membership
agreement. In addition to the initial membership fee, members make
monthly payments to the Cedars Club, which cover the cost of
various amenities. These monthly payments include a payment to the
Cedars for overhead expenses, which is described in the membership
agreement, disclosure statements, declaration, and bylaws of the
condominium association.

Jonathan and Diane Wilner filed a lawsuit seeking: (1) a
declaratory judgment that the covenants requiring membership and a
membership fee, and requiring payment of an overhead fee, do not
run with the land, and are therefore unenforceable; (2) a
declaratory judgment that the preliminary membership fee is a
transfer fee prohibited under N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 39A-3; (3) a
judgment that the preliminary membership fee violates the
Marketable Title Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 47B; and (4) a
temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to prohibit
the collection of the membership fee and overhead payment.

The Wilners then filed an amended complaint, joining as plaintiffs
Edwin B. Hoel, Per Ole Hoel, and Linda Leekley with Jonathan
Wilner and Diane Wilner, as plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' amended
complaint included additional factual allegations, and an
additional cause of action for breach of the declaration and
bylaws of the condominium association. On November 7, 2011,
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which the court
granted.

The parties each filed motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs'
summary judgment motion also included new language not previously
used in their complaint, alleging that the membership agreements
were unconscionable, and seeking a permanent injunction.

On January 10, 2014, the trial court granted summary judgment in
favor of plaintiffs as to plaintiffs' claims asserting that the
covenants were unenforceable, that they violated Chapter 39A of
the North Carolina General Statutes, and that they violated N.C.
Gen. Stat. Section 47B, the Real Property Marketable Title Act,
and plaintiffs' request for a temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction. The trial court denied defendants' motions
for summary judgment.  Defendants appeal.

Judge Steelman vacated and remanded the suit to the trial court
for a trial by jury.

A copy of Judge Steelman's decision dated June 2, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/5FnMIJfrom Leagle.com.

Benjamin R. Kuhn -- bkuhn@rl-law.com -- Amie C. Sivon --
asivon@rl-law.com -- R. Michael Pipkin -- at Ragsdale Liggett
PLLC, for plaintiff-appellees

James T. Williams, Jr. -- jwilliams@brookspierce.com -- Jennifer
K. Van Zant -- jvanzant@brookspierce.com -- D.J. O'Brien III --
dobrien@brookspierce.com -- at Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey
& Leonard, L.L.P., for defendant-appellants

K. Edward Greene -- egreene@wyrick.com -- Tobias S. Hampson --
thampson@wyrick.com -- Wyrick Robbins Yates & Ponton LLP; Brent D.
Barringer -- Robert H. Sasser, III -- at Barringer & Sasser, LLP,
for amici curiae The Cypress of Charlotte and The Cypress of
Raleigh

The Court of Appeals of North Carolina panel consists of Judges
Sanford L. Steelman Jr., Martha A. Geer and Linda Stephens.


CELLADON CORP: Aug. 31 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
--------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Celladon Corporation ("Celladon" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:CLDN) and certain of its officers.   The class action,
filed in United States District Court, Southern District of
California, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased Celladon securities between July 7, 2014
and June 25, 2015 inclusive (the "Class Period").  This class
action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged
violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Celladon securities during
the Class Period, you have until August 31, 2015 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com  To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

Celladon is a clinical-stage biotechnology company which is
focused on the development of cardiovascular gene therapy and
calcium dysregulation. The Company's lead product candidate is
MYDICAR(R) ("MYDICAR"), which uses genetic enzyme replacement
therapy to correct the Sarco/endoplasmic reticulum Ca2+-ATPase, or
"SERCA2a," enzyme deficiency in heart failure patients that
results in inadequate pumping of the heart.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
adverse information regarding the prospects for MYDICAR, the
Company's first most promising investigational drug for heart
failure patients. Among the undisclosed material information was
that: (i) the success in the CUPID1 trials was really not
indicative of any success in the CUPID2 trials since the CUPID1
trial was extremely small, and (ii) the Company's existence was
tied to trial results of which limitations Defendants were aware.

On April 26, 2015, Celladon issued a press release announcing that
the Company's Phase 2b CUPID2 trial of MYDICAR did not meet its
primary and secondary goals. CUPID2 was a randomized, double-
blind, placebo-controlled multinational trial evaluating a single,
one-time, intracoronary infusion of MYDICAR versus placebo added
to a maximal, optimized heart failure drug and device regimen. The
Company reported that "the primary endpoint comparison of MYDICAR
to placebo resulted in a hazard ratio of 0.93 (0.53, 1.65 95%CI)
(p=0.81), defined as heart failure-related hospitalizations or
ambulatory treatment for worsening heart failure" and the
"secondary endpoint comparison of MYDICAR to placebo, defined as
all-cause death, need for a mechanical circulatory support device,
or heart transplant, likewise failed to show a significant
treatment effect."

As a result of this news, the price of Celladon stock plummeted
$11.04 per share to close at $2.64 per share on April 27, 2015, a
decline of 80% on volume of 32 million shares.

On June 1, 2015, Celladon issued a press release announcing the
abrupt resignation of defendant Krisztina M. Zsebo ("Zsebo") as
Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") and a director.

Then, on June 26, 2015, before the market opened, Celladon issued
a press release announcing the suspension of its plans for further
research or development of its MYDICAR program and other pre-
clinical programs, and indicating the possibility that the Company
could be liquidated with net cash available to shareholders of
$25-$30 million.

As a result of this news, the price of Celladon stock dropped
$0.85 per share to close at $1.35 per share on June 26, 2015, a
decline of 38% on volume of 9 million shares.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida,
and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the
field of securities class actions. More than 70 years later, the
Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting
for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered
numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class
members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Colo. Judge Quashes Subpoena on HR Consultant
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe of the District of Colorado
ruled on motions to quash subpoena filed in the case CINDA
DAGGETT, Movant, v. MAXCIMO SCOTT, JAY ENSOR, MATTHEW MEDINA,
EUFEMIA JIMENEZ, KRYSTAL PARKER, STACY HIGGS, and CHRISTINA JEWEL
GATELY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Respondents, CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-MC-00065-CMA-MJW (D. Colo.)

A collective and class action against Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.
and Chipotle Services LLC was pending before the Southern District
of New York filed by the plaintiffs -- respondents in the present
case. The lawsuit is a conditionally certified collective action
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), with pendant state-law
claims that the plaintiffs, respondent in this case, hope to
certify as class actions.

Plaintiffs sought Cinda Daggett's record in discovery, where
previous to the filing of the lawsuit in the Southern District of
New York, Chipotle had sought out legal opinions in treatment of
apprentices, the respondents in the present case. One of the law
firms rendering an opinion hired Daggett, a human resources
consultant, to observe the day-to-day work of Apprentices and
prepare a written report for the law firm's use.

Plaintiffs then served a document subpoena on Ms. Daggett. She
responded by providing a copy of her report, but she did not
produce her work-file or any related documents, claiming that such
documents were lost in a computer crash. Plaintiffs then served a
deposition subpoena on Ms. Daggett. She has moved to quash the
subpoena, claiming status as an unretained expert under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(3)(B)(ii). Chipotle filed a motion
seeking the same relief.

Before the court is Daggett's motion to quash or modify subpoena
to testify as a deposition, Chipotle's motions to quash subpoena
and deposition of Daggett and plaintiffs/respondents' motion to
transfer the subpoena motions to the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

Magistrate Watanabe granted in part and denied in part Daggett's
motion to quash or modify subpoena to testify at a deposition,
Chipotle's motion to quash subpoena and deposition of Daggett is
denied as moot and respondents' motion to transfer the Subpoena
motions to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York is denied.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Watanabe's orders dated May 26, 2015,
is available at http://is.gd/P2gMMtfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Justin Mitchell Swartz --
jms@outtengolden.com -- Melissa Lardo Stewart --
mstewart@outtengolden.com -- at Outten & Golden, LLP; Rajasimha
Raghunath -- at Raghunath Law Firm LLC

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. and Chipotle Services, LLC,
Defendants, represented by John Karl Shunk -- jshunk@messner.com
-- at Messner & Reeves LLP

Cinda Daggett, Actually named as a Non-Party Witness, Interested
Party, represented by Antonio L. Converse -- aconverse@allen-
vellone.com -- Kevin David Allen -- kallen@allen-vellone.com -- at
Allen & Vellone, P.C.


CHOICE ENERGY: "Murray" TCPA Class Action Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------
District Judge Timothy S. Black of the Southern District of Ohio,
Western Division granted defendants' motion to dismiss in the case
TERRY MURRAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CHOICE ENERGY, LLC, et al., Defendants,
CASE NO. 1:15-CV-60 (S.D. Ohio)

Choice Energy, LLC and Premiere Business Solutions, LLC are
limited liability companies organized in Iowa. Choice Energy is a
licensed electric supplier providing electric generation services
for primarily residential customers and businesses. Premiere is a
telemarketing company that actively sells Choice Energy's
services, on Choice Energy's behalf, through widespread
telemarketing.

Plaintiff Terry Murray brought a putative class action against
Choice Energy and Premiere Business, alleging violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA).

Between August and November 12, 2014, plaintiff received at least
ten telephone calls to his landline telephone from the same
telephone number. Plaintiff answered the call on more than one
occasion and was informed that the call was from Choice Energy.
Plaintiff expressly requested to be removed from the calling list
and to no longer receive any calls from defendants. However,
plaintiff continued to receive calls.

Plaintiff alleges that defendants acted in concert to solicit
customers to use defendant Choice Energy's electric energy supply
services and that defendants acted in a joint manner as a singular
entity to solicit consumers to purchase electric supply services
from Choice Energy through telemarketing.

Defendant Choice Energy filed a motion to dismiss.

Judge Black granted the motion to dismiss plaintiff's TCPA claim
against Choice Energy without prejudice. Plaintiff may file an
amended complaint within 21 days of the entry date of the order.

A copy of Judge Black's order dated July 10, 2015, is available at
http://goo.gl/jf5bpMfrom Leagle.com.

Terry Murray, Plaintiff, represented by:

William McAllum Harrelson, II, Esq.
12 S Cherry Street
Troy, OH, 45373-3206
Telephone: 937-335-8324

     - and -

Stefan L. Coleman, Esq. -- stefan@classaction.ws -- at Stefan
Coleman, PLLC

Choice Energy, LLC, Defendant/Cross Claimant, represented by
Christopher S Williams -- cwilliams@calfee.com -- David Thomas
Bules -- dbules@calfee.com -- Jamie M Ramsey -- jramsey@calfee.com
-- at Calfee Halter & Griswold LLP; Gabrielle A. Figueroa --
Murray E. Bevan -- mbevan@bmgzlaw.com -- at Bevan, Mosca, Giuditta
& Zarillo, P.C.

Premiere Business Solutions, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Kimberly Smith Rivera -- kyrivera@mcglinchey.com -- at McGlinchey
Stafford PLLC


CLEARWATER BILLING: Sued in Florida Over Illegal Billing Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Lafantant, Marylis Morales, Maria Lamothe, Natalie
Lafontant, Felicia Carter, John Bryant, Yvonne Santiago, and
Stacey Bain, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Clearwater Billing Services, LLC and Town Park
Crossing, L.P., Case No. 1:15-cv-22648-JEM (S.D. Fla., July 15,
2015), arises out of the Defendants' deceptive billing practices,
specifically by billing for paid telephone services from a
domestic or international airport using a credit or debit card.

Clearwater Billing Services, LLC is a foreign limited liability
company that provides billing services.

Town Park Crossing, L.P. operates a residential apartment at 7843
Davie Road Extension, Hollywood, FL 33024.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Kalman Tucker, Esq.
      Richard James Caldwell, Esq.
      DAVID K. TUCKER, P.A.
      2151 Le Jeune Road, Suite 300
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Telephone: (305) 461-3627
      Facsimile: 461-3628
      E-mail: David@tuckerkotler.com
              caldwelllaw@bellsouth.net


COLORADO: 4-Day Bench Trial in "Decoteau" to Begin Nov. 9
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William J. Martinez of the District of Colorado
denied the parties' motions for summary judgment in the case RYAN
DECOTEAU, ANTHONY GOMEZ, and DOMINIC DURAN, Plaintiffs, v. RICK
RAEMISCH, in his official capacity as the Executive Director of
the Colorado Department of Corrections, and TRAVIS TRANI, in his
official capacity as the Warden of the Colorado State Penitentiary
and Centennial Correctional Facility, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO.
13-CV-3399-WJM-KMT (D. Colo.)

As per Colorado Department of Corrections (DOC) policy, Colorado
State Penitentiary prisoners in administrative segregation or in
solitary confinement are denied all outdoor exercise.

Effective June 30, 2014, however, DOC eliminated the term
administrative segregation and replaced it with a new
classification, the Restrictive Housing Maximum Security Status
("Restrictive Housing").  The major difference between
administrative segregation and Restrictive Housing is that inmates
in Restrictive Housing have a presumptive limit on their stay,
either six or twelve months, depending on the offense that
warranted their placement in Restrictive Housing.

Restrictive Housing still generally does not allow for outdoor
exercise. However, as of January 2015, inmates confined to
Restrictive Housing for more than nine months are allowed to
exercise for one hour per day, three days per week, in a setting
that DOC characterizes as outside. This exercise takes place in
what DOC calls a walled outdoor courtyard of approximately 700
square feet. Plaintiffs describe the same area as an indoor room
adjacent to the gym measuring approximately 694 square feet with a
metal mesh and razor wire ceiling. The room is surrounded on all
sides by concrete walls that are approximately 20 feet high.

Plaintiffs filed the class action, claiming that the DOC's policy
of denying outdoor exercise to certain inmates at the Colorado
State Penitentiary is a violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment while
defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.

Judge Martinez denied the parties' motions and the matter remains
set for a 4-day bench trial beginning November 9, 2015, at 8:30
a.m., with a final trial preparation conference set for October
23, 2015, at 2:30 p.m. in Courtroom A801.

A copy of Judge Martinez's order dated May 27, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/VoeiKxfrom Leagle.com.

In April, Judge Martinez granted Plaintiffs' Motion to Redefine
the class.

The Court previously granted Plaintiffs' motion to certify the
following class: "All inmates who are now or will in the future be
housed in administrative segregation at the Colorado State
Penitentiary and who are now or will in the future be subjected to
the policy and practice of refusing to provide such inmates access
to outdoor exercise."

In his Order dated April 13, 2015 available at http://is.gd/Ixyv3c
from Leagle.com, Judge Martinez said the class is redefined as
follows: "All inmates who are now or will in the future be housed
at the Colorado State Penitentiary and who are now or will in the
future be subjected to the policy and practice of refusing to
provide such inmates access to outdoor exercise."

The Court denied Defendants' Cross-Motion to Redefine the Class.

Ryan Decoteau, Plaintiff, represented by Amy Farr Robertson, Civil
Rights Education and Enforcement Center, Lauren Louise Fontana,
University of Denver-Sturm College of Law & Lindsey De Soto Webb,
University of Denver-Sturm College of Law

Anthony Gomez, Plaintiff, represented by Amy Farr Robertson, Civil
Rights Education and Enforcement Center, Lauren Louise Fontana,
University of Denver-Sturm College of Law & Lindsey De Soto Webb,
University of Denver-Sturm College of Law

Dominic Duran, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Amy Farr Robertson, Civil
Rights Education and Enforcement Center, Lauren Louise Fontana,
University of Denver-Sturm College of Law & Lindsey De Soto Webb,
University of Denver-Sturm College of Law

Rick Raemisch, in his official capacity as the Executive Director
of the Colorado Department of Corrections, Defendant, represented
by Nicole S. Gellar, Colorado Attorney General's Office &
Christopher Wayne Alber, Colorado Attorney General's Office

Travis Trani, in his official capacity as the Warden of the
Colorado State Penitentiary and Centennial Correctional Facility,
Defendant, represented by Nicole S. Gellar, Colorado Attorney
General's Office & Christopher Wayne Alber, Colorado Attorney
General's Office


COOPER TIRE: Suit Over Failed Apollo Tyres Buyout Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tire Review reported that a Delaware judge has dismissed a class
action lawsuit against Cooper Tire & Rubber Co.

The lawsuit was originally filed in January 2014 on behalf of
investors following the failed Apollo Tyres buyout.  The lawsuit
alleged Cooper violated the federal securities laws by issuing a
series of materially misleading statements and omissions in
connection with Apollo's proposed acquisition of the company. In
addition, the complaint alleged that Cooper misrepresented
Cooper's financial condition, financial prospects and the
effectiveness of the company's internal controls.

In March, Cooper sought dismissal of the case claiming it had no
merit.


CORMEDIX INC: Sept. 4 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
-------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of CorMedix, Inc. ("CorMedix") (NYSE:CRMD) between
March 12, 2011 and June 29, 2015.

You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has
been commenced in the USDC for the District of New Jersey. If you
purchased or otherwise acquired CorMedix, Inc. securities between
March 12, 2011 and June 29, 2015, your rights may be affected by
this action.

The complaint alleges that, among other allegations, during the
Class Period defendants' overstated the cost effectiveness and
effectiveness of Neutrolin compared to currently established
medical protocol, failed to disclose the use of paid stock
promoters, and that insiders enriched themselves at the expense of
shareholders by selling stock at inflated prices.

On June 29, 2015, an article by The Pump Stopper and featured on
Seeking Alpha alleged that personnel involved in the formation of
CorMedix had faced prior accusations of fraud, that Neutrolin's
performance in clinical trials was vastly overstated, and that the
Company had engaged stock promoters in order to inflate the
Company's share price.

If you suffered a loss in CorMedix you have until September 4,
2015 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, New
Jersey, Connecticut and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have
extensive expertise in prosecuting securities litigation involving
financial fraud, representing investors throughout the nation in
securities and shareholder lawsuits. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.


CORRECTIONS CORP: Judge Denies Bid to Exclude Report Exhibits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Candy W. Dale of the District of Idaho denied
plaintiffs' motion in limine in the case OMAR CASTILLON, DUSTY
KNIGHT, JUSTIN PETERSON, LEON RUSSELL, CHRISTOPHER JORDAN, JACOB
JUDD, MICHAEL FORD-BRIDGES, AND RAYMOND BRYANT, Plaintiffs, v.
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, INC., Defendant, CASE NO.
1:12-CV-00559-EJL-CWD (D. Idaho)

Plaintiffs brought a civil rights action against Corrections
Corporation of America, Inc. (CCA), alleging violations of their
Eighth Amendment rights prohibiting the imposition of cruel and
unusual punishment, and the corresponding duty of the prison to
protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other prisoners.

After several proposals, on September 27, 2013, the parties filed
a stipulation requesting that Edward "Tad" Leach be considered and
appointed as the Independent Monitor to monitor CCA's compliance
with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, which was approved by
the judge.
Leach made a report (Exhibit 21) on June 30, 2014 summarizing his
findings during seventy on-site inspections conducted between
November 15, 2013, and June 29, 2014, during which Leach found no
violations of the staffing requirements set forth in the
Settlement Agreement. On April 15, 2014 Leach filed a
comprehensive violence report (Exhibit 23), examining data and
comparing the rates of certain types of assaults between inmates
at the three largest prisons in Idaho from 2007 through 2013. The
two reports were submitted on July 22, 2014.

Plaintiffs filed a motion in limine challenging and trying to
exclude Exhibits21, 23 and 22N, a collection of color-coded tables
or charts summarizing and comparing assault rates at ICC and
IDOC's facility, ISCI.

CCA contends the motion in limine should be denied, because the
Leach exhibits were timely disclosed as soon as they became
available, and the summary chart, prepared pursuant to Fed. R.
Evid. 1006, was based upon data publicly available to plaintiffs.

Magistrate Judge Dale denied plaintiffs' motion in limine.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Dale's order dated July 13, 2015, is
available at http://goo.gl/ENncUvfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by:

Anthony Shallat, Esq.
Thomas J Angstman, Esq.
Wyatt Benton Johnson, Esq.
ANGSTMAN, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
3649 N Lakeharbor Ln
Boise, ID 83714
Telephone: 208-384-8588

The Media Coalition, Plaintiff, represented by Charles A Brown

Corrections Corporation of America Inc, Defendant, represented by
Daniel Patrick Struck -- dstruck@swlfirm.com -- Tara B Zoellner --
tzoellner@swlfirm.com -- at Struck, Wieneke & Love, PLC; Kirtlan G
Naylor -- kirt@naylorhales.com -- at NAYLOR & HALE


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Updates Stuffed Chicken Products Recall
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 14, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Costco Wholesale Canada Inc.
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9945

The food recall warning issued on July 13, 2015 has been updated
to include additional product information as well as corrected
information. This additional information was identified during the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) food safety
investigation. The corrections are marked by an asterisk (*)
below.

Industry is recalling Barber Foods brand uncooked stuffed chicken
products from the marketplace due to possible Salmonella
contamination. Consumers should not consume and distributors,
retailers and food service establishments such as hotels,
restaurants, cafeterias, hospitals and nursing homes should not
sell or use the recalled products described below.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home or
establishment. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned
to the location where they were purchased.

Food contaminated with Salmonella may not look or smell spoiled
but can still make you sick. Young children, pregnant women, the
elderly and people with weakened immune systems may contract
serious and sometimes deadly infections. Healthy people may
experience short-term symptoms such as fever, headache, vomiting,
nausea, abdominal cramps and diarrhea. Long-term complications may
include severe arthritis.

There have been no reported illnesses in Canada associated with
the consumption of these products.

This recall was triggered by a recall in another country. The CFIA
is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the
recall of other products. If other high-risk products are
recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food
Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled products
from the marketplace.

  Brand name   Common name       Size   Code(s)      UPC
  ----------   -----------       ----   on product   ---
                                        ----------
  Barber Foods Raw Stuffed       1.13   2016 MR 01   0 73461-
               Chicken Breasts-  kg     2016 FE 18   00006 3*
               Cordon Swiss
               (ITM. 824695)
  Barber Foods Raw Stuffed       1.13   2016 FE 18   0 73461-
               Chicken Breasts-  kg                  00007 0*
               Broccoli & Cheese
               (ITM. 924699)
  Barber Foods Stuffed Breaded   284 g  2016 FE 17   0 73461-
               Chicken Breast                        00011 7*
               Cutlettes/Uncooked
               - Broccoli &
               Cheese
  Barber Foods A La Kiev -       4.08   0950572108*  8007346-
               Breasts of        kg                  1954072
               Chicken
  Barber Foods Stuffed Breaded   284 g  2016 FE 17   0 73461-
               Chicken Breast                        00010 0
               Cutlettes/Uncooked
               - Ham & Cheese
  Barber Foods Breasts of        4.76   0950572104   6007346-
               Chicken filled    kg                  1957536
               with Broccoli and
               Cheese

Pictures of the Recalled Products are available at:
http://is.gd/DMwy4x


CYBER-STRUCT: Bankruptcy Judge Won't Hear Subcontractors' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bankruptcy Judge Nancy Hershey Lord of the United States
Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of New York permissively
abstained from the proceedings and remanded the suit entitled In
re: Patsy Fierro, Chapter 11, Debtor. J.C. Ryan EBCO/H&G LLC, on
behalf of itself and all other subcontractors similarly situated
Plaintiff, v. Cyber-Struct Inc., Louis Zuccaro, aka Lou Zuccaro,
aka Louie Zuccaro, Patrick Fierro, aka Patsy Fierro, aka Pat
Fierro, Damon Coromilas, Defendants. In re: Luigi Zucaro, aka
Louis Zucaro, Chapter 11, Debtor. J.C. Ryan EBCO/H&G LLC, on
behalf of itself and all other subcontractors similarly situated
Plaintiff, v. Cyber-Struct Inc., Louis Zuccaro, aka Lou Zuccaro,
aka Louie Zuccaro, Patrick Fierro, aka Patsy Fierro, aka Pat
Fierro, Damon Coromilas, Defendants, CASE NO. 1-14-41439-NHL, ADV.
PRO. NO. 1-14-01068-NHL, CASE NO. 1-14-41440-NHL. ADV. PRO. NO. 1-
14-01087-NHL (Bankr. E.D.N.Y.)

J.C. Ryan EBCO/H&G, LLC (Ryan) filed a class action suit in the
New York State Supreme Court against Luigi Zuccaro, Patsy Fierro
(debtors), and Cyber-Struct, Inc. (Cyber-Struct), an entity owned
by the debtors. The action alleged that Cyber-Struct, the general
contractor, did not fully compensate thirteen subcontractors for
their work on a construction project. The action sought
remuneration under Article 3-A of New York Lien Law, which
allegedly created a statutory trust for the plaintiffs' benefit.

The state court found the debtors liable and entered a judgment
against them. The debtors twice moved to vacate the state court
judgment, were the second motion was pending at the time the
debtors filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy relief. The debtors
removed the state court proceeding to the present court.

Ryan opposes the removal and moves for remand of the proceeding to
state court and relief from the automatic stay to continue the
action in that forum. Alternatively, Ryan requests that the
present court abstain under the doctrines of mandatory or
permissive abstention.

Bankruptcy Judge Lord granted Ryan's motion based solely on
permissive abstention. The removed actions are remanded to the New
York State Supreme Court.

A copy of Bankruptcy Judge Lord's decision dated May 29, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/pcTDFgfrom Leagle.com.

Attorney for the Debtors/Defendants:

Douglas J. Pick, Esq.
PICK & ZABICKI LLP
369 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1200
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: 646-561-9365
Facsimile: 212-695-6007

     - and -

Jay H. Berg, Esq.
CORNICELLO TENDLER & BAUMEL-CORNICELLO
2 Wall St #20
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: 212-994-0260

Attorney for JC Ryan EBCO/H&G, LLC:

Scott A. Mandelup, Esq.
PRYOR & MANDELUP, LLP
675 Old County Rd, Westbury, NY 11590
Telephone: 516-997-0999

     - and -

Richard L. Yellen, Esq.
RICHARD L. YELLEN & ASSOCIATES, LLP
111 Broadway Lbby
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: 212-404-6988


DANIELS NORELLI: Faces "Korn" Suit in N.Y. Over FDCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aron Korn, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. Daniels Norelli Scully & Cecere, P.C., Case No. 1:15-
cv-04131 (E.D.N.Y., July 14, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
      ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
      483 Chestnut Street
      Cedarhurst, NY 11516
      Telephone: (516) 791-4400
      Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
      E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


DELTA AIRLINES: Faces Suits Over Alleged Collusion on Airfares
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ashlee Kieler, writing for Consumerist, reported that following
news that the Department of Justice opened an investigation into
alleged collusion between major airlines to keep ticket prices
high, it was only a matter of time before consumers began filing
lawsuits against the major U.S. carriers.

Two groups of passengers have filed lawsuits against Delta,
United, American and Southwest airlines alleging they colluded to
keep fares high through a series of mega-mergers, The Hill
reports.

The two lawsuits, filed late in Chicago and New York, accuse the
airlines of a "conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize
prices of airline tickets through a number of mechanisms."

"This action challenges a collusion among major airlines to limit
routes, information and available seats to keep airfares
artificially high," the New York-based lawsuit states. "Plaintiffs
allege that defendants illegally signaled to each other how
quickly they would add new flights, routes, and extra seats. To
keep prices high on fares, it was undesirable for the defendants
to increase capacity."

Both suits seek class-action status. The Chicago lawsuit
specifically seeks to represent all consumers who purchased
tickets for domestic flights from October 1, 2012 to present. That
complaint points to the airline industry's quick and increased
consolidation in recent years as evidence of collusion, Bloomberg
reports.

The four airlines named in the lawsuits have undergone major
mergers in the last decade and now reportedly account for 80% of
all domestic air travel.

Back in 2008 Delta merged with Northwest Airlines; in 2010
Southwest acquired AirTran; United merged with Continental
Airlines in 2012; and American and U.S. Airways finalized their
merger in 2013 but have not yet combined all operations.

"This increased consolidation has hurt airline passengers,"
according to the Chicago-filed complaint. "Defendants have, in
tandem, raised fares, imposed new and higher fees on travelers and
reduced their capacity and service."

The New York lawsuit claims that airfares have remained higher
despite the fact that costs for airlines have decreased since
major mergers began.

"With suppression of routes, seats, and information, defendants
can make even higher profits, because at the same time there has
been a massive drop in the price airlines pay for jet fuel, their
single highest expense," the lawsuit states.

Airlines' supposed bad behavior began to make headlines in recent
weeks after Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal sent a letter
to Assistant U.S. Attorney General William Baer urging the DOJ to
investigate possible collusion and anti-competitive actions in the
airline industry that could result in higher airfares for
consumers.

Blumenthal cited a recent report which found some airlines plan to
cut back on the number of seats offered on certain routes in an
attempt to boost profits.

"In light of the recent unprecedented level of consolidation in
the airline industry, this public display of strategic
coordination is highly troubling," Blumenthal stated in the
letter.

And in early July, the DOJ announced it had begun the
investigation process, having already requested information from
airlines as part of an investigation into "unlawful coordination."

While the Dept. didn't specify which airlines were being targeted,
American Airlines CEO Doug Parker sent a message to employees over
the weekend confirming receipt of the information request and
assuring workers that the company had down nothing wrong.

"On behalf of your entire leadership team, let me be crystal
clear: there has been no illegal behavior on the part of American
Airlines," Parker said in the letter. "We will comply fully with
the demands of the [Civil Investigative Demand] and this fact will
be proven."

Bloomberg reports that Chicago-based United is also complying with
the Dept. of Justice's request for information, but declined to
comment on the passenger lawsuits. Delta also declined to comment
on the cases.

Neither Southwest, nor American representatives returned
Bloomberg's request for comment.

However, industry group Airlines for America tell The Hill that it
is "confident that the Justice Department will find what we know
to be true: our members compete vigorously every day, and the
traveling public has been the beneficiary, as domestic fares are
actually down thus far in 2015."


DIAMANTE LLC: Ark. Remands Suit to Determine Validity of Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Associate Justice Josephine Linker Hart of the Supreme Court of
Arkansas reversed and remanded the appealed case entitled
DIAMANTE, LLC, APPELLANT, v. GARY DYE and LINDA DYE, APPELLEES,
NO. CV-14-618 (Ark.)

Diamante took an appeal from an order of the Saline County Circuit
Court denying its motion to compel arbitration with unnamed class
members. Diamante argues that the circuit court erred in denying
its motion to compel arbitration of the unnamed class members on
the ground that Diamante had waived its right to arbitrate those
claims and the Court of Appeals' finding in the first arbitration
opinion that the arbitration provision in the club's bylaws is
valid and enforceable as law of the case and therefore binding on
the unnamed class members.

Gary and Linda Dye filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. They
asserted that this is the second appeal relating to arbitration by
Diamante, and that in the first appeal, the Appellate court
affirmed the circuit court's finding that a delay of seven months
waived Diamante's right to compel arbitration.  The Dyes pointed
out that the current case involves a delay of at least ten months
and a trial on the merits was completed on the case and, as of the
filing of the class's motion on August 21, 2014, the parties were
awaiting the circuit court's decision. The Dyes contend that the
present appeal is either moot or frivolous.

Associate Justice Hart reversed and remanded the case to Saline
County Circuit Court to rule on whether there was a valid
agreement to arbitrate between Diamante and the unnamed class
members.

A copy of Associate Justice Hart's opinion dated May 28, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/KgC4refrom Leagle.com.

For Appellant:

Richard T. Donovan -- rdonovan@roselawfirm.com -- Betsy Turner-Fry
-- bturner@roselawfirm.com -- at Rose Law Firm

     - and -

Philip McCorkle, Esq.
McCorkle, Curry & Bennington, LLP
929 Main Street
P.O. 607
Arkadelphia, AR 71923
Telephone: 870-246-2468
Facsimile: 870-246-3851

For Appellees:

Terry Diggs, Esq.
Terry Diggs, Lawyer, P.A.
102 Archwood St.
Hot Spring, AR 71901
Telephone: 501-623-6407

The Supreme Court of Arkansas panel consists of Associate Justice
Josephine Linker Hart and Special Justices David Sterling and Paul
Byrd.


DOUBLE INSIGHT: Recalls Pressure Cookers Due to Shock Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 15, 2015
Posting date: July 15, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Electrical Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-54204

This recall involves the Instant Pot Smart-60 Pressure Cooker.
The recalled product is a multi-function cooker, has a stainless
steel finish, and measures about 12 inches (30 centimeters) in
diameter and 12 inches (30 centimeters) tall. The affected product
has UPC code 853084004132 and UL certification file number
E214884.  Only products with a date code between October 2014
(1410) and March 2015 (1503) are affected by this recall. Note
that the date codes are the first four digits of a longer serial
number located at the bottom of the pressure cooker's base. The
model name "Smart-60" can be found on a label on the back of the
unit.

The thermal probe in the heating element may cause electric
current to leak, posing an electric shock hazard.

Health Canada has not received any consumer reports of incidents
or injuries related to the use of these products.

Double Insight Inc. has received one report of minor electric
shock from a consumer in Canada and three reports in the United
States.

Approximately 140 units were sold in Canada and 1000 were sold in
the United States.

The recalled product was sold from December 2014 to June 2015
online at www.amazon.ca and www.instantpot.com/store.

Manufactured in China

Manufacturer: GD Midea Consumer Electric Mfg. Co. Ltd
              GuangDong
              CHINA

Distributor: Double Insight Inc.
             Burnaby
             British Columbia
             CANADA

Consumers should immediately stop using the product and contact
Double Insight Inc. for a replacement or refund.

For additional information, consumers may contact Double Insight
Inc. toll-free at 1-800-828-7280 ext. 2, from  9:00 am to 5:00 pm
Pacific Time, or by e-mail or visit the company's website and
click on "Instant Pot Smart recall" under "Useful Information".

Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's
website.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.

This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product
Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on
other international consumer product recalls.

Pictures of the Recalled Products are available at:
http://is.gd/pO0ipw


DRESS BARN: Judge Narrows Claims in "Lamkins" Suit
--------------------------------------------------
District Judge John Robert Blakey of the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division ruled on the parties' motions in the
case Cheryl Lamkins and Morton A. Segall, Plaintiffs, v. The Dress
Barn, Inc., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 14 C 8116 (N.D. Ill.)

Defendant Ascena Retail Group is the parent company of The Dress
Barn, Inc., that hired Cheryl Lamkins. Lamkins procured insurance
from the defendants sometime on or before January 1, 2013, where
she designated co-plaintiff Morton A. Segall as the beneficiary.
From the time they acquired the benefits plan, the plaintiffs paid
approximately $144.29 bimonthly as premium.

The Plaintiffs incurred medical, hospital and ancillary expenses
and made a claim under the benefits plan for the payment of the
expenses they incurred, but the defendants denied their claim.

The Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit on behalf of themselves and a
similarly situated class of persons who acquired the Benefits
Plan.  The Plaintiffs allege that in denying their claim, the
defendants breached the Benefits Plan (Count I) and misrepresented
the coverage under the Benefits Plan, giving rise to claims for
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act (ICFA) (Count III) and common law fraud (Count IV).
Plaintiffs' last count (Count V) is for discovery under 735 ILCS
5/2-402. Section 2-402 is a feature of Illinois civil procedure
that allows plaintiffs to designate in their pleadings non-
defendants who may have relevant information for discovery.

The Defendants move to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the
plaintiffs' state law claims are preempted by the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), but also argue that the
plaintiffs, who are proceeding pro se, cannot maintain a class
action and that their fraud claims do not meet Rule 9(b)'s
heightened pleading standards.

The Plaintiffs argue that the case should be remanded to state
court where it was originally filed.

Judge Blakey denied the plaintiff's motion to remand and
defendants' motion to dismiss is granted. Counts I, III and IV are
dismissed with prejudice while Count II is dismissed without
prejudice.  The Plaintiffs can pursue an ERISA theory of liability
without amending their complaint, the court said.

A copy of Judge Blakey's memorandum opinion and order dated May
27, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/78Wdsgfrom Leagle.com.

Cheryl Lamkins, Plaintiff, Pro Se

Morton Allan Segall, Plaintiff, Pro Se

Defendants, represented by Martin J. Bishop -- John Louis
Litchfield -- jlitchfield@foley.com -- Rebecca R. Hanson -- at
Foley & Lardner


EL DORADO: Sued Over Failure to Design Blind-Accessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andres Gomez, on his own behalf, and on behalf of all other
individuals similarly situated v. El Dorado Furniture Corporation,
d/b/a El Dorado Furniture, Case No. 1:15-cv-22651-MGC (S.D. Fla.,
July 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
design a website that permits access for the visually impaired.

El Dorado Furniture Corporation owns and operates furniture,
mattress and accessories stores in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott Richard Dinin, Esq.
      SCOTT R. DININ, P.A.
      4200 NW 7th Avenue
      Miami, FL 33127
      Telephone: (786) 431-1333
      Facsimile: (786) 513-7700
      E-mail: srd@dininlaw.com


ENTERGY OPERATIONS: "Webb" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Webb v. Entergy Operations, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00466 -
JWD-RLB (M.D. La., July 15, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid back
wages, an additional amount as liquidated damages, reasonable
attorney's fees, and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

Entergy Operations, Inc. operates two nuclear power plants in
Louisiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas Andrew Arabie, Esq.
      THE BARINGER LAW FIRM
      201 St. Charles Street
      Baton Rouge, LA 70802
      Telephone: (225) 383-9953
      Facsimile: (225) 387-3198
      E-mail: douglas@baringerlawfirm.com


EQT PRODUCTION: First-Filed Rule Does Not Apply to "Barr" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Frederick P. Stamp, Jr. of the Northern District of
West Virginia, granted plaintiffs' motion to amend in the case
LARRY BARR and ELVA BARR, Plaintiffs, v. EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY, a
Pennsylvania corporation, Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14CV57
(STAMP) (N.D.W.Va.)

Larry Barr and Elva Barr initially filed the action in the Circuit
Court of Wetzel County, West Virginia.  The case was subsequently
removed to the federal district court by EQT.  Plaintiffs'
complaint consists of six counts: breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, conversion, nuisance, negligence, and punitive
damages.

The plaintiffs have filed a motion to amend the complaint to add
additional claims and parties. The plaintiffs asserted that
through discovery, they have uncovered that the defendant and
other EQT entities are involved in a design and plan to continue
to avoid payment to lessors all of the royalties due to them. The
plaintiffs argue that through a false sale, the defendant and
other EQT entities are able to shift costs to the lessors rather
than assuming those costs themselves. The plaintiffs thus seek to
add five EQT entities as defendants, and to add all others
similarly situated as plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are seeking to make
the suit a class action. In adding new parties, the plaintiffs
have also asserted declaratory judgment, breach of contract and
violations of West Virginia Code Section 22-6-8, as additional
causes of action.

In response, EQT asserts that the plaintiffs' motion should not be
granted because a federal class action suit involving the same or
similar claims is already pending, The Kay Co., LLC v. EQT
Production Company, Civil Action No. 1:13CV151-JPB. EQT argues
that the "first-filed rule" must govern because there are two
concurrent pending federal actions seeking relief for the same
alleged conduct, Kay Co. was filed first, and there are no
compelling circumstances to avoid the first-filed rule. EQT also
asserted that requiring EQT and the other proposed defendants to
defend two competing class actions directed at the same alleged
conduct would be unduly prejudicial. EQT contends that the
amendment would be both futile and prejudicial.

Judge Stamp granted as framed plaintiffs' motion to amend
complaint and join additional parties. The parties, specifically
the defendants, are directed to advise the court of the status of
The Kay Co., LLC v. EQT Production Company, Civil Action No.
1:13CV151-JPB, and the denial or granting of class certification.

A copy of Judge Stamp's memorandum opinion and order dated May 22,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/4faLRLfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel J. Guida -- Jonathan E. Turak --
jet@gkt.com -- at Gold, Khourey & Turak, LC

EQT Production Company, Defendant, represented by David K
Hendrickson -- daveh@handl.com -- at Hendrickson & Long


EXETER FINANCE: "Goldowsky" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bradley Goldowsky, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Exeter Finance Corp., Case No. 1:15-cv-00632-RJA
(W.D.N.Y., July 15, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Exeter Finance Corp. operates a financial services company with
its principal place of business of 222 Las Colinas Blvd. W. Ste.
1800, Irving, Texas 75309.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan W. Ferris, Esq.
      Michael J. Lingle, Esq.
      THOMAS & SOLOMON LLP
      693 East Avenue
      Rochester, NY 14607
      Telephone: (585) 272-0540
      Facsimile: (585) 272-0574
      E-mail: jferris@theemploymentattorneys.com
              mlingle@theemploymentattorneys.com


FERRELLGAS INC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Penalties
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Coronado, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Ferrellgas, Inc., and Does 1 through 10,
Case No. 5:15-cv-01402 (C.D. Cal., July 14, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid wages and penalties under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Ferrellgas, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation that provides propane
delivery services throughout Riverside County, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul K. Haines, Esq.
      Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
      Kristina R. Sherry, Esq.
      BOREN, OSHER & LUFTMAN, LLP
      222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 2222
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Telephone: (310) 322-2220
      Facsimile: (310) 322-2228
      E-mail: phaines@bollaw.com
              fschmidt@bollaw.com
              ksherry@bollaw.com


FOCUS RECEIVABLES: Sued in Cal. Over Automated Telephone Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Bohlke, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Focus Receivables Management, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-
05279 (C.D. Cal., July 14, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's
practice of contacting the Plaintiff on his cellular telephone
using an automatic telephone dialing system.

Focus Receivables Management, LLC is a collections company that
provides debt collection services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
              sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com
              abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com


GIANT TIGER: Recalls BBQ Meats Party Packs Due to Wheat
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 13, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Gluten, Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Giant Tiger Wholesale Ltd.
Distribution: Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9924

  Brand name   Common name      Size    Code(s)      UPC
  ----------   -----------      ----    on product   ---
                                        ----------
  Nutri-Qual   BBQ Meats Party  1.608   All codes    7 69923-
               (Combo) Pack     kg      where wheat  19078 5
               with Probiotic           is not
                                        declared on
                                        the label


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Recalls Biotene Dry Mouth Toothpastes
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 13, 2015
Posting date: July 16, 2015
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Natural health products
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-54248
The impacted products are being recalled as a precautionary
measure because they may contain wood fragments.

Depth of distribution: Retailers

Affected products:
Biotene Dry Mouth Toothpaste
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
NPN 80035511
Dosage form: Paste
Strength: Sodium Floride 0.254% (w/w)
Lot or serial number: X3F031
                      X3H161
                      X3K161
                      X3M091
                      X4A181
                      X4B021
                      X4C141
                      X4C191
                      X4E111
                      X3G261

Recalling Firm: GlaxoSmithKline Inc.
                7333 Mississauga Road
                Mississauga
                L5N 6L4
                Ontario
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: GlaxoSmithKline Inc.
                                7333 Mississauga Road
                                Mississauga
                                L5N 6L4
                                Ontario
                                CANADA


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Recalls Sensodyne Whitening Products
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 13, 2015
Posting date: July 16, 2015
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Natural health products
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-54246

The impacted products are being recalled as a precautionary
measure because they may contain wood fragments.

Depth of distribution: Retailers

Affected products:
Sensodyne Repair and Protect Whitening
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM

NPN 80035244
Dosage form: Paste
Strength: Calcium sodium phosphosilicate 5.0% w/w
          Sodium monofluorophosphate 0.788% w/w
Lot or serial number: 3M251
                      3N141
                      4A171
                      4B191
                      4C031
                      4E051
                      4E081
                      4G161
                      4H231

Recalling Firm: GlaxoSmithKline Inc.
                7333 Mississauga Road
                Mississauga
                L5N 6L4
                Ontario
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: GlaxoSmithKline Inc.
                                7333 Mississauga Road
                                Mississauga
                                L5N 6L4
                                Ontario
                                CANADA


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Recalls Sensodyne Rapid Relief Products
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 13, 2015
Posting date: July 16, 2015
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Natural health products
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-54250

The impacted products are being recalled as a precautionary
measure because they may contain wood fragments.

Depth of distribution: Retailers

Affected products:
Sensodyne Rapid Relief
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
NPN 80026197
Dosage form: Paste
Strength: Strontium acetate hemihydrate 8.0 % w/w
          Sodium fluoride 0.23% w/w


Lot or serial number: 3G161
                      3J051
                      3J121
                      3M271
                      3N031
                      4B241
                      4B281
                      4C061
                      4C211
                      4C241
                      4E291
                      4F011
                      4G081
                      4G261
                      4H301

Recalling Firm: GlaxoSmithKline Inc.
                7333 Mississauga Road
                Mississauga
                L5N 6L4
                Ontario
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: GlaxoSmithKline Inc.
                                7333 Mississauga Road
                                Mississauga
                                L5N 6L4
                                Ontario
                                CANADA


GLOBAL CONTACT: Oregon Judge Orders Parties to Show Cause
---------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Paul Papak of the District of Oregon ordered the
parties to show cause why the case ROSS REDDICK, Plaintiff, v.
GLOBAL CONTACT SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, NO. 3:15-CV-425-PK (D.
Ore.), should not be remanded to state court.

Plaintiff Ross Reddick filed a putative class action against
defendant Global Contact Solutions, LLC (GCS), in the Multnomah
County Circuit Court on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated on January 29, 2015.  By and through his state-court
complaint, Reddick alleged GCS' liability under Oregon statutory
law for failure to pay wages and for failure to pay all wages due
and owing at the termination of employment, both such failures
arising out of GCS' alleged practice of requiring all of its
employees to attend mandatory training at the beginning of their
employment, without compensation.

GCS removed Reddick's action to the federal district court
effective March 13, 2015, on the purported basis of original
federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.
Reddick moved for remand of the action to the Multnomah County
Court on April 15, 2015, and oral argument was held in connection
with Reddick's motion on May 26, 2015.

Judge Papak ordered the parties to show cause, within 45 days of
the date of the order, why the action should not be remanded to
state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(3) or 28 U.S.C.
1332(d)(4), and all other further proceedings in the action are
stayed other than discovery.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Papak's opinion order and order to show
cause dated June 1, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/qAuoVtfrom
Leagle.com.

Ross Reddick, an indivdual, Plaintiff, represented by:

David Arthur Schuck, Esq.
Stephanie J. Brown, Esq.
SCHUCK LAW, LLC
10013 NE Hazel Dell Avenue, #178
Vancouver, WA 98685
Telephone: 503-974-6152
Facsimile: 503-575-2763

     - and -

Karen A. Moore, Esq.
BAILEY PINNEY & ASSOCIATES LLC
2401 SE 161st Ct #C
Vancouver, WA 98683
Telephone: 360-567-2551

Global Contact Solutions, LLC, a domestic limited liability
company, Defendant, represented by Leora Coleman-Fire -- lcoleman-
fire@schwabe.com -- Amanda T. Gamblin -- agamblin@schwabe.com --
Thomas M. Triplett -- ttriplett@schwabe.com -- at Schwabe
Williamson & Wyatt, PC


GLOBAL CREDIT: Faces "Levy" Suit in N.Y. Over FDCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shmuel Levy, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. Global Credit & Collection Corp., Case No. 1:15-cv-
04144 (E.D.N.Y., July 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant
for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
      ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
      483 Chestnut Street
      Cedarhurst, NY 11516
      Telephone: (516) 791-4400
      Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
      E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


HEALTHCARE PARTNER: Cal. Ct. App. Upholds Abstention Doctrine
-------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Ben Feuer of the Court of Appeals of California, Second
District, Division Seven, affirmed the judgment of dismissal in
the appealed case COREY HAMBRICK, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.
HEALTHCARE PARTNERS MEDICAL GROUP, INC. et al., Defendants and
Respondents, NO. B251643 (Cal. Ct. App.)

Plaintiff Corey Hambrick brought a class action alleging causes of
action for violation of the unfair competition law, common law
fraudulent concealment, and violation of the false advertising law
against defendants Healthcare Partners Medical Group, Inc. (MGI),
Healthcare Partners, LLC (HCP-LLC) and DaVita Healthcare Partners,
Inc. (DVHCP).

Hambrick's claims that although HCP does not fall within the
literal definition of a health care service plan as defined in
Health and Safety Code section 1345, subdivision (f)(1), due to
the level of risk it assumed, HCP operated as a health care
service plan without obtaining the license required by the Knox-
Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975 (Knox-Keene Act;
Section 1340 et seq.), and without meeting the regulatory mandates
required of health care service plans.
On March 20, 2013, MGI filed a demurrer to the first amended
complaint and a motion to strike. MGI also sought a protective
order staying discovery. MGI demurred on the grounds that Hambrick
failed to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action and
that the court lacked jurisdiction.  MGI argued that the doctrine
of judicial abstention required dismissal of all claims or, in the
alternative, the court should invoke the doctrine of primary
jurisdiction to allow the Department of Managed Health Care DMHC
to make a licensing decision.

On April 12, 2013 HCP-LLP and DVHCP filed a separate demurrer
raising the same issues raised by MGI in its demurrer. In their
demurrer, HCP-LLP and DVHCP also argued that the claims against
them should be dismissed because Hambrick failed adequately to
plead any alleged wrongdoing or secondary liability on their part.
HCP-LLP and DVHCP also sought a protective order. Hambrick opposed
both demurrers, as well as MGI's motion to strike.

On June 21, 2013 the trial court sustained MGI's demurrer without
leave to amend as to all three causes of action, adopting in its
entirety the previously issued tentative decision and invoked the
doctrine of judicial abstention. The trial court declared MGI's
motion to strike, as well as the motions for a protective order
staying discovery, to be moot.

On July 19, 2013 the trial court entered judgment in favor of the
HCP defendants, awarded them costs, and dismissed the action with
prejudice. Thereafter, the HCP defendants filed a memorandum of
costs. Hambrick moved to tax costs, arguing that the HCP
defendants were not prevailing parties in light of the trial
court's decision to abstain and that the HCP defendants failed to
itemize their costs. The HCP defendants then filed a restated
memorandum of costs. The trial court denied the motion to tax
costs. Hambrick appealed.

Justice Feuer affirmed the judgment of dismissal, including the
order awarding costs.

A copy of Justice Feuer's unpublished opinion dated June 1, 2015,
is available at http://is.gd/vrkryefrom Leagle.com.

For Plaintiff and Appellant, Yana G. Henriks -- yhenriks@law-
mh.com -- Randy H. McMurray -- rmcmurray@law-mh.com -- at McMurray
Henriks

For Defendants and Respondents, Terese A. Mosher Beluris --
tmosherbeluris@mwe.com -- Gregory R. Jones -- gjones@mwe.com -- at
McDermott Will & Emery

The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
panel consists of Presiding Justice Dennis M. Perluss and Justices
Laurie D. Zelon and Feuer.


HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL: Defendant Gets New Trial After Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Diane S. Sykes of the United States Court of
Appeals, Seventh Circuit, remanded the appealed case entitled
GLICKENHAUS & COMPANY, et al., on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. HOUSEHOLD
INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellants, NO. 13-3532
(7th Cir.)

Defendant Household International, Inc. is in the business of
consumer lending, mortgages, home equity, loans, auto financing,
and credit-card loans. Between the summers of 1999 and 2001,
Household's stock rose from around $40 per share to the mid $60s,
and by July of 2001 was trading as high as $69. But the reality of
Household's situation eventually caught up with its stock price.
The truth came to light over a period of about a year through a
series of disclosures that began when California sued Household
over its predatory lending. Other states also launched
investigations and eventually collaborated in multi-state
litigation. The so-called disclosure period culminated when
Household settled the multi-state litigation for $484 million.
Between the filing of California's suit on November 15, 2001, and
the multistate settlement on October 11, 2002, Household's stock
dropped 54%, from $60.90 to $28.20.

In 2002 the plaintiffs filed a securities-fraud class action under
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C.
Section 78j(b), and the Securities and Exchange Commission's Rule
10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5, alleging that on numerous
occasions Household and its executives misrepresented its lending
practices, delinquency rates, and earnings from credit card
agreements. The plaintiffs' expert presented two models for
measuring stock-price inflation. Each model generated a table that
estimated inflation on any given day during the class period. The
jury adopted one of the two models.

In Phase II the parties addressed reliance issues and calculated
damages for individual class members. In the meantime, the
defendants challenged the jury's verdict in a motion for judgment
as a matter of law, or alternatively, for a new trial. The
district court denied the motions. Some individual claims have yet
to be resolved, but the district court entered final judgment on
claims totaling $2.46 billion, finding no just reason for delay.
An appeal followed.

Defendants claim that the plaintiffs' evidence of loss causation
was legally insufficient, entitling them to judgment as a matter
of law, or at the very least a new trial. The defendants also
raise a claim of instructional error under Janus Capital Group,
Inc. v. First Derivative Traders, 131 S.Ct. 2296 (2011), which
clarified what it means to make a false statement in connection
with the purchase or sale of a security in violation of Rule 10b-
5, also warranting a new trial and finally, they contend that
discovery rulings during the Phase II proceedings deprived them of
a meaningful opportunity to prove that class members did not rely
on the misrepresentations.

Judge Sykes reversed and remanded the suit, expressing that the
defendants are entitled to a new trial, but only to the issues of
loss causation and whether the three executives made certain
statements under Janus's narrow definition of that term, all other
claims of error are rejected.

A copy of Judge Sykes's opinion dated May 21, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/Y0xb7wfrom Leagle.com.

The Seventh Circuit Panel consists of Circuit Judges Diane S.
Sykes, William Joseph Bauer and Michael S. Kaane.


INTEREXCHANGE: Au Pair Wage Class Action Pending in Colorado
------------------------------------------------------------
Celia Ampel, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that two
Fort Lauderdale lawyers hope to help raise wages for au pairs
across the country through a class-action suit.

Boies, Schiller & Flexner attorneys Sigrid S. McCawley --
smccawley@bsfllp.com -- and Lauren Fleischer Louis --
llouis@bsfllp.com -- are part of a legal team alleging the 15
government-selected au pair sponsor organizations have colluded to
keep wages at $4.35 an hour for thousands of au pairs.

The live-in nannies "are working a large number of hours,"
Ms. McCawley said.  "They're not getting paid a federally mandated
wage.  And because they're foreigners, they don't know where to
turn.  They don't have a voice, and they're not aware of their
rights."

The price-fixing and minimum wage violation lawsuit seeks to
overhaul the American au pair program, which brings 13,000 young
adults into the U.S. every year on J-1 visas.

The suit was filed in November by Towards Justice, a Colorado-
based nonprofit that focuses on workers' rights, for lead
plaintiff Johana Paola Beltran.  The case is in U.S. District
Court for Colorado under Judge Christine M. Arguello.

Au pairs are paid $195.75 a week for 45 hours of work, a minimum
amount calculated by the U.S. Department of State in 2007.  The
figure is based on the federal minimum wage, minus a 40 percent
credit for room and board, which host families provide.

But the plaintiffs contend the government has always said J-1 visa
holders are entitled to minimum wage.

After the suit was filed, the State Department took down the 2007
notice and made public statements saying it expected sponsors to
comply with federal and state minimum wage laws, said plaintiffs'
attorney Matthew Schwartz -- mlschwartz@BSFLLP.com -- of Boies
Schiller in New York.

Defendants seek to have the suit dismissed, saying the allegations
fundamentally mischaracterize the au pair program as a work
program, rather than a cultural exchange.

The program was designed to help increase understanding between
the U.S. and foreign countries, wrote attorneys for au pair
sponsor organization InterExchange in an April 20 motion to
dismiss the complaint.

Because the program is under the immigration umbrella, federal law
should preempt state law when it comes to au pairs, the motion
continues.

The defense also holds that the program would become less unified
if it were governed by state laws, and the au pair experience
would begin to differ significantly from state to state.

InterExchange lead attorney Brooke Colaizzi --
bcolaizzi@shermanhoward.com -- of Sherman & Howard in Denver
declined to comment on the pending litigation.

Plaintiffs' attorneys said it's inappropriate to deduct room and
board costs from au pairs' wages because credits are not
permissible when certain provisions are required by law or are
implemented for the employer's benefit.

"You don't get to pass on your business expense to your employees,
whether it's uniforms, tools of the trade or in certain
circumstances, housing," Mr. Schwartz said.

The state department has never directly pushed the sponsor
organizations to make sure host families pay minimum wage,
plaintiffs' attorneys said.

"As with many things with the government, it often takes a private
citizen raising the issue before it gets addressed adequately,"
Ms. McCawley said.  "We needed to bring this lawsuit to highlight
the problems that are underlying the program so that we can
effectuate some change."

The plaintiffs are represented by Louis, McCawley and Schwartz, as
well as Peter Skinner -- pskinner@bsfllp.com -- and Randall
Jackson -- rjackson@bsfllp.com -- of Boies Schiller in New York
and Alexander Hood of Towards Justice in Denver.

The 15 sponsor organizations' attorneys are from the firms Sherman
& Howard, Kelly & Walker, Greenberg Traurig, Brownstein Hyatt
Farber Schreck, Holland & Hart, Gordon & Rees, Jester Gibson &
Moore, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell, Fisher & Phillips, Snell & Wilmer
and Dufford & Brown in Denver; Rietz Law Firm in Dillon, Colorado;
Lawson & Weitzen in Boston and Bogdan Enica in St. Petersburg.


JEWELSCENT INC: Sued in California Over Illegal Lottery Operation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kara Swedberg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JewelScent, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-01561-LAB-JLB (S.D.
Cal., July 15, 2015), alleges that the Defendant owns and operates
unlawful lotteries by manufacturing and selling certain products,
including, but not limited to, scented candles, aroma
beads and soaps, that contain a hidden jewel valued between $10 to
$7500 or a golden token for jewels valued over $100, that were
distributed to consumers by chance and for consideration.

JewelScent, Inc. is a California corporation that manufacturers
scented candles, aroma beads and soaps.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gouya A. Ranekouhi, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      E-mail: gouya@kazlg.com

         - and -

      Joshua Swigart, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
      E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Derivative Suit by Asbestos Workers Fund Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock of the Court of Chancery of Delaware
granted defendants' motion to dismiss in the case ASBESTOS WORKERS
LOCAL 42 PENSION FUND, derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant
JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v. LINDA
B. BAMMANN, JAMES A. BELL, CRANDALL C. BOWLES, STEPHEN B. BURKE,
DAVID M. COTE, JAMES S. CROWN, JAMIE DIMON, TIMOTHY P. FLYNN,
ELLEN V. FUTTER, LABAN P. JACKSON, MICHAEL A. NEAL, DAVID C.
NOVAK, LEE R. RAYMOND, WILLIAM WELDON, DOUGLAS L. BRAUNSTEIN,
MICHAEL CAVANAGH, INA DREW, IRVIN GOLDMAN, JOHN HOGAN, PETER
WEILAND, JOHN WILMOT, and BARRY ZUBROW, Defendants, and JPMORGAN
CHASE & CO., Nominal Defendant, C.A. NO. 9772-VCG (Del. Ch.)

JPMorgan's Chief Investment Office (CIO) was formed in 2005
through a spin-off of the Company's internal treasury function.
CIO is part of the Corporate and Private Equity sector at JPMorgan
and manages the company's excess cash deposits. The plaintiff
alleges that the CIO traditionally followed a typical conservative
approach for large banks and invested the company's excess
deposits in very safe instruments, including U.S. treasury bonds,
municipal bonds, corporate securities, high-grade corporate bonds,
and high-grade mortgage-backed securities.

In 2005, defendant Jamie Dimon appointed defendant Ina Drew to
serve as the company's Chief Investment Officer as part of his
plan to transform the CIO from a risk-mitigating operation to a
profit center, by which they, together with other senior
executives, aggressively transformed the CIO into a proprietary
trading desk. In May 2006, the CIO authorized trading in credit
derivative indices and credit default swaps not limited to a
single corporation. This new business initiative was presented as
a risk reduction effort to protect JPMorgan against cyclical
exposure to credit, and was assigned an initial Value-at-Risk
(VaR) of $5 million. This credit-trading program came to be known
as the Synthetic Credit Portfolio (SCP).

Beginning in November 2007, internal audits recognized there were
problems with the CIO's methods of accounting and price testing of
credit derivatives. In conducting an audit that was characterized
as a First Time Review of New Business, Product or Service, the
Company's internal auditors described the CIO's activities as
proprietary position strategies executed on credit and asset
backed indices and did not indicate that the credit trading
activity was being conducted to lower the company's risk. The
internal audit group found the CIO's control environment
satisfactory but noted calculation errors in the CIO Valuation
Control Group's testing of prices of credit derivatives.

The plaintiff alleges that after changing the focus of the SCP
from asset-liability management to generating revenue, JPMorgan
failed to document the changes in the SCP in accordance with its
own internal policies and failed to disclose the portfolio's
existence to regulators.

In 2012, consolidated derivative actions were commenced before
Judge George B. Daniels of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York and Justice Jeffrey K. Oing of
the New York Supreme Court, Commercial Division respectively, were
both suits were dismissed.

The plaintiff seeks to pursue its derivative claim without having
made demand on the board, alleging that demand would be futile
because the majority of the board is interested or not
independent. The plaintiff alleges that a majority of the board
could not impartially consider demand because they face a
substantial likelihood of personal liability in connection with
alleged breaches of the duty of loyalty for failure in their
oversight function, as well as for material misstatements or
omissions in SEC filings between 2009 and 2011. The plaintiff also
alleges a lack of independence due to the compensation and
benefits connected with the directors' service on the Board.

The essence of the derivative action is that, despite the risky
trading undertaken by the CIO, the board failed to ensure the
implementation of a risk management structure commensurate with
that risk.

The complaint alleges that the Review Committee members were not
independent and that its report is self-serving and obfuscates the
sequence of events, permitting the defendants to refuse to hold
any high-level person accountable for any event that led up to the
CIO losses.

The defendants move to dismiss on two separate grounds; first,
that collateral estoppel or res judicata preclude the plaintiff
from litigating demand futility yet again, and second, even if
collateral estoppel or res judicata do not apply, that the
plaintiff has not satisfied its burden to show demand is excused
as futile.

Vice Chancellor Glasscock granted defendants' motion to dismiss.

A copy of Vice Chancellor Glasscock's memorandum opinion dated May
22, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/LdudUefrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiff represented by:

Stewart L. Cohen, Esq.
Robert L. Pratter, Esq.
Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq.
Alessandra C. Phillips, Esq.
COHEN PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C.
2001 Market St Suite 2900
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: 866-291-7088
Facsimile: 215-567-6019

     - and -

Carmella P. Keener -- ckeener@rmgglaw.com -- P. Bradford deLeeuw -
-  bdeleeuw@rmgglaw.com -- at ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.;
Peter Safirstein -- psafirstein@forthepeople.com -- Elizabeth
Metcalf -- emetcalf@morganseclaw.com -- at MORGAN & MORGAN, P.C.

James Dimon, Douglas L. Braunstein, Michael Cavanagh, Ina Drew,
Irvin Goldman, John Hogan, Peter Weiland, John Wilmot, Barry
Zubrow and JPMorgan Chase & Co., Defendants, represented by,
Gregory P. Williams -- williams@rlf.com -- Catherine G. Dearlove
-- dearlove@rlf.com -- Christopher H. Lyons -- lyons@rlf.com -- at
RICHARDS LAYTON & FINGER P.A.; Richard C. Pepperman --
peppermanr@sullcrom.com -- George R. Painter --
painterg@sullcrom.com -- Daryl A. Libow -- libowd@sullcrom.com --
Christopher M. Viapiano --  viapianoc@sullcrom.com -- at SULLIVAN
& CROMWELL LLP

Linda B. Bammann, James A. Bell, Crandall C. Bowles, Stephen B.
Burke, David M. Cote, James S. Crown, Ellen V. Futter, Timothy P.
Flynn, Laban P. Jackson, Jr., Michael A. Neal, David C. Novak, Lee
R. Raymond, and William C. Weldon, Defendants, represented by,
David C. McBride -- dmcbride@ycst.com -- William D. Johnston --
wjohnston@ycst.com -- Kathaleen S. McCormick --
kmccormick@ycst.com -- at YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR LLP;
Jonathan C. Dickey -- jdickey@gibsondunn.com -- Brian M. Lutz --
blutz@gibsondunn.com -- at GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP


LIBERTY MUTUAL: CHIS Lawsuit Dismissed; Discovery Bid Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Marc T. Treadwell of the Middle District of
Georgia, Macon Division, granted defendants' motions to dismiss
and declines plaintiff's request to allow jurisdictional discovery
in the case CHIS, LLC, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL HOLDING COMPANY
INC., et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-CV-277 (MTT) (M.D.
Ga.)

Defendant Peerless Indemnity Insurance Company issued an insurance
policy to CHIS LLC. Plaintiff seeks relief on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated for the defendants' alleged refusal to
assess and pay damages for diminution in value when claims are
made under their business or commercial property insurance
policies. CHIS alleges that it timely reported a claim for direct
physical loss to its building resulting from water damage but
that, in violation of Georgia law and in breach of their insurance
policy with CHIS, the defendants failed to assess and pay damages
for diminution in the value of CHIS's property. CHIS asserts a
claim for breach of contract and a claim for declaratory relief.
CHIS seeks to hold defendants Liberty Mutual Group, Inc. (LMGI),
Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. (LMIC), and Liberty Mutual Holding
Company Inc. (LMHC) liable based on an alter ego, agency, and/or
joint venture theory.

LMGI and LMIC have moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted, contending the complaint does
not sufficiently allege a basis for holding them liable, and LMHC
has moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

CHIS asserts that the court has personal jurisdiction over LMHC
for the same reasons it contends liability is proper based on an
alter ego, agency, and/or joint venture theory. CHIS requests
that, should the court deem its jurisdictional allegations
insufficient, it be allowed to conduct jurisdictional discovery.

A copy of Judge Treadwell's order dated July, 13, 2015 is
available at http://goo.gl/8KYbJPfrom Leagle.com.

CHIS LLC, Plaintiff, represented by:

ADAM P PRINCENTHAL, Esq.
Princenthal & May, LLC
5901 Peachtree Dunwoody Rd NE #525
Atlanta, GA 30328
Telephone: 678-534-1980
Email: adam@princemay.com

     - and -

C COOPER KNOWLES, Esq.
Stack & Associates, P.C.
260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 1200
Atlanta, GA 30303
Telephone: 404-525-9205
Facsimile: 404-522-0275

     - and -


CLINTON W SITTON, Esq.
Kopelman Sitton
3405 Piedmont Road, NE, Suite 500
Atlanta, GA 30305
Telephone: 404-351-5900
Facsimile: 404-832-8421
Email: Clint@KopelmanSitton.com

     - and -

JAMES C BRADLEY, Esq.
MATTHEW A NICKLES, Esq.
MICHAEL J BRICKMAN, Esq.
NINA FIELDS BRITT, Esq.
Richardson, Patrick, Westbrook & Brickman, LLC
Mount Pleasant, SC
Telephone: 843-727-6603
Facsimile: 843-216-6509
Email: jbradley@rpwb.com
       mnickles@rpwb.com
       mbrickman@rpwb.com
       nfields@rpwb.com

     - and -

RICHARD KOPELMAN, Esq.
Habif, Arogeti & Wynne, LLP
Five Concourse Parkway, Suite 1000
Atlanta, GA 30328
Telephone: 404-892-9651
Email: richard.kopelman@hawcpa.com

Defendants, represented by BOWEN REICHERT SHOEMAKER --
bowen.shoemaker@alston.com -- CARI K DAWSON --
cari.dawson@alston.com -- DANIEL F DIFFLEY --
dan.diffley@alston.com -- DAVID B CARPENTER --
david.carpenter@alston.com -- at ALSTON & BIRD


LRR ENERGY: Faces "Krieger" Suit Over Proposed Vanguard Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Krieger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LRR Energy, L.P., et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-02017 (S.D.
Tex., July 14, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the public
shareholders of LRR Energy, L.P., to enjoin the Purchase Agreement
and Plan of Merger under which Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC
will acquire all of the outstanding units of LRR Energy, for
inadequate consideration and unfair price.
LRR Energy, L.P. operates, acquires, exploits, and develops
producing oil and natural gas properties in North America.

Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC is a Delaware limited liability
company that acquires and develops oil and natural gas properties
in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas E. Bilek, Esq.
      THE BILEK LAW FIRM LLP
      700 Louisiana, Ste 3950
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 227-7720
      E-mail: tbilek@bileklaw.com


LUMIX HIBACHI: Faces "Chen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cheng Chen and Fan Chao Zeng, on their own behalf and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Lumix Hibachi Restaurant Inc.
d/b/a Lumix Hibachi, Qi Lin, Mei Yu Zhang, Jian Xiong Chen, Tommy
"Doe", John Doe and Jane Doe # 1-10, Case No. 2:15-cv-04128-JS-ARL
(E.D.N.Y., July 14, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40
each workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Nassau County
located at 693 Sunrise Hwy, Lynbrook, NY 11563.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Avenue, Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Telephone: (718) 353-8588
      Facsimile: (918) 353-6288
      E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


MANAGEMENT & TRAINING: Judge Rejects Suit Over Valley Fever
-----------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Anthony W. Ishii of the Eastern District of
California granted defendants' motions for summary judgment in the
case JOSEPH USUNUBU ALUYA, Plaintiff, v. MANAGEMENT & TRAINING
CORPORATION and DOES 1-9, Defendant. DEMOND HAMMOND, Plaintiff, v.
MANAGEMENT & TRAINING CORPORATION and DOES 1-9, Defendant. BRUCE
DWIGHT SUTTON, Plaintiff, v. MANAGEMENT & TRAINING CORPORATION and
DOES 1-9, Defendant, CASE NOS. 1:13-CV-1345 AWI JLT, 1:13-CV-1209
AWI JLT, 1:13-CV-1344-AWI JLT (E.D. Cal.)

Defendant Management & Training Corporation (MTC) is a private
entity that manages the Taft Correctional Institution (Taft CI) at
Taft, California, under contract with the federal Bureau of
Prisons (BOP). Defendant is a Delaware corporation with
headquarters in Utah.

MTC formulated Standard Operating Procedure 4002 (SOP 4002) in
2007 and that SOP 4002 was approved by BOP. SOP 4002 addresses
Treatment of Inmates with Cocci/Valley Fever and includes
recommendations for the screening of incoming inmates to exclude
those whose immune systems are highly compromised as, for example,
in persons with HIV disease, solid organ transplant or undergoing
chemotherapy for cancer.

Plaintiff Joseph Usunubu Aluya was received at Taft CI on April 8,
2011. He received medical screening upon arrival and was found not
to have any immune deficiencies. Plaintiff underwent a serological
test for infection with Cocci in May 2011 and tested positive.
Plaintiff Alaya's complaint alleges he suffered severe flu-like
respiratory symptoms. Defendant Alaya alleges affirmatively that
he did not suffer disseminated disease.

Plaintiff Bruce Dwight Sutton was incarcerated at the federal
correctional facility as Safford, Arizona prior to being
transferred to Taft CI on November 8, 2011. Sutton was housed at
Taft CI from November 8, 2011 until February, 2012. Plaintiff was
medically screened upon his arrival at Taft CI and did not fit any
of the criteria for exclusion. Plaintiff Sutton was diagnosed with
coccidiomycosis in December 2011. Sutton alleges in his complaint
that he suffered a severe acute pulmonary disease requiring
surgical intervention.

Plaintiff Demond Hammond was received at Taft CI in March 2009.
Like the other plaintiffs, Hammond was medically screened upon
arrival at Taft CI and was found to have no significant diseases
or any conditions that would have placed him in any category for
exclusion under SOP 4002. Hammond underwent a serological test for
infection with Coccidioidies immitis, the results of which
indicated he had been infected. In his complaint, Hammond had
acute phase pulmonary symptoms similar to those experienced by the
other plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs seek money damages from MTC in its role as managing
entity of Taft CI. MTC filed motion for summary judgment on each
of the 3 cases.

Judge Ishii ordered that the defendant MTC is entitled to summary
judgment as to all claims by each of the plaintiffs.

A copy of Senior District Judge Ishii' orders dated July 10, 2015,
is available at http://goo.gl/VZos3ofrom Leagle.com.

Demond Hammond, Plaintiff, represented by:

Hermez Moreno, Esq.
Raymond Paul Boucher, Esq.
Brian M. Bush, Esq.
BOUCHER LLP
21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: 818-340-5400
Facsimile: 818-340-5401

     - and -

Jason K Feldman, Esq.
Ian Michael Wallach, Esq.
FELDMAN AND WALLACH
606 Venice Boulevard, Suite C
Venice, CA 90291
Telephone: 310-577-2001
Facsimile: 310-564-2004

     - and -

Mark A. Ozzello, Esq.
Suzy E. Lee, Esq.
ARIAS OZZELLO & GIGNAC LLP
14th Floor, 6701 Center Dr. W
Los Angeles, CA 90045
Telephone: 310-670-1600

Management & Training Corporation (MTC), Defendant, represented by
Susan Eileen Coleman -- scoleman@bwslaw.com -- Kristina Doan
Gruenberg -- kgruenberg@bwslaw.com -- at Burke, Williams &
Sorensen LLP


MARIO'S WELDING: Faces "Flint" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyrone Flint, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Monique E. Cisneros and Mario Alberto Guerra,
collectively d/b/a Mario's Welding, Case No. 5:15-cv-00585 (W.D.
Tex., July 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime compensation for work more than 40 hours
in individual work week.

The Defendants own and operate a welding company that contracts
with residents and businesses in Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan Seth Grove, Esq.
      Charles M.R. Vethan, Esq.
      VETHAN LAW FIRM P.C.
      8700 Crownhill Blvd, Suite 302
      San Antonio, TX 78209
      Telephone: (210) 824-2220
      Facsimile: (210) 826-2223
      E-mail: jsethgrove@gmail.com
              cvethan@vethanlaw.com


MCKESSON CORP: Judge Won't Compel Document Production in TCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu of the Northern District of
California denied plaintiffs' motion to compel production in the
case TRUE HEALTH CHIROPRACTIC INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v.
McKESSON CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 13-CV-02219-HSG
(DMR) (N.D. Cal.)

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action challenging Defendants'
alleged practice of sending unsolicited facsimile advertisements,
or so-called "junk faxes," in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act
of 2005, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 (TCPA).

On June 23, 2014, plaintiffs filed their first motion to compel
defendants to produce all facsimile advertisements that it
transmitted during the four-year period prior to the filing of the
complaint. Defendants produced only four exemplar faxes, limiting
their production to faxes that were similar in substance to the
faxes attached to the pleadings.

Plaintiffs brought a motion for sanctions against defendants
alleging that defendants had failed to produce the discovery
ordered by the court. The court then ordered defendants to produce
responsive documents only from the marketing departments of
McKesson Corporation or McKesson Technologies by April 2, 2015.

Defendants subsequently investigated its documents and learned
that all of the faxes attached to the operative complaint were
created by or at the direction of one or more former employees of
Physician Practice Solutions, a business unit under McKesson
Technologies Inc. Defendants searched for marketing documents
created by PPS and as a result of the search, defendants produced
37 previously-unproduced exemplar faxes to plaintiffs, raising the
total number of unique faxes known to plaintiffs to 45.

Plaintiffs request that defendants expand their search for
exemplar faxes to other McKesson entities, departments, business
units, and/or affiliates. The parties met and conferred and were
unable to resolve their dispute without judicial intervention.
Plaintiffs move to compel defendants to produce certain documents
from McKesson entities other than those for which Defendants have
already produced documents.

Magistrate Judge Ryu denied plaintiffs' motion to compel.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Ryu's order dated May 27, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/cWiGRJfrom Leagle.com.

True Health Chiropractic Inc, an Ohio Corporation, Individually
and as the Representative of a class of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff, represented by Robert C. Schubert --
rschubert@schubertlawfirm.com -- Willem F. Jonckheer --
wjonckheer@schubertlawfirm.com -- Dustin Lamm Schubert --
dschubert@schubertlawfirm.com -- at Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe
LLP; Brian John Wanca -- BWanca@andersonwanca.com -- Glenn L. Hara
-- GHara@andersonwanca.com -- Ross Michael Good --
RGood@andersonwanca.com -- Ryan Michael Kelly --
RKelly@andersonwanca.com -- at Anderson & Wanca; George Demetrios
Jonson -- gjonson@mrjlaw.com -- Matthew Elton Stubbs --
mstubbs@mrjlaw.com -- at Montgomery Rennie Jonson

McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc., Plaintiff, represented
by Brian John Wanca -- BWanca@andersonwanca.com -- Glenn L. Hara
-- GHara@andersonwanca.com -- Ross Michael Good --
RGood@andersonwanca.com -- at Anderson & Wanca; Dustin Lamm
Schubert -- dschubert@schubertlawfirm.com -- Willem F. Jonckheer
-- wjonckheer@schubertlawfirm.com -- at Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe
LLP; George Demetrios Jonson -- gjonson@mrjlaw.com -- at
Montgomery Rennie Jonson

McKesson Corporation, Defendant, represented by Benjamin French
Patterson -- bpatterson@mofo.com -- Tiffany Cheung --
tcheung@mofo.com -- at Morrison & Foerster LLP

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, United States Attorney's Office,
Northern District 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36060 9th Floor San
Francisco, CA 94102, Intervenor, represented by Warren Metlitzky,
United States Attorney


MIAMI, FL: Rulings Over Ad Valorem Taxes Upheld
-----------------------------------------------
Judge Kevin Emas of the District Court of Appeals of Florida,
Third District affirmed the trial court's orders in the appealed
case Milan Investment Group, Inc., etc., Appellant, v. City of
Miami, etc., et al., Appellees, CASE NOS. 3D14-538,, 3D14-539,
3D14-540 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.)

The City enacted Ordinance No. 7370, which established a downtown
development authority (DDA), effective November 17, 1965, and
authorized the City Commission to levy up to one half mill ad
valorem tax on all real and personal property located within the
designated DDA boundaries. Thereafter, the City expanded the
geographic boundaries of its DDA on three separate occasions, July
8, 1983, April 27, 1989, and December 12, 2002.

On December 16, 2008, Milan Investment Group filed a class action
complaint for declaratory, equitable, monetary and other relief
against Appellees. Milan, a real property owner in the City's
central business district, asserted in its complaint that it, and
other similarly situated property owners, had been
unconstitutionally taxed by the city an additional one-half mill
ad valorem tax for the 2008 tax year. The tax was levied by the
City pursuant to City Ordinance 13029, passed in September 2008,
which assessed a tax of one-half mill on the dollar valuation of
all property located within the boundaries of the City's Downtown
Development District.

In its complaint, Milan sought to have the court determine (1)
that chapters 65-1090, 71-29, and 99-208 Section 36, Florida
Statutes, were unconstitutional; (2) that the City's levying of
the one-half mill ad valorem tax on property in the central
business district was unconstitutional and illegal; (3) that the
DDA ordinance had been repealed; and (4) that the DDA was not an
independent special district. Further, Milan sought to enjoin the
City and the DDA from operating the DDA or levying and collecting
any further sums in excess of the tax burden imposed by the City
generally. Finally, Milan sought a refund, on behalf of all
members of the class, of all sums illegally collected.

The Appellees moved to dismiss Milan's complaint, asserting that
its claims were barred by the 60-day non-claim statute pursuant to
section 194.171(2), Florida Statutes  and  the general four-year
statute of limitations for actions challenging a local government
ordinance or resolution, section 95.11(3)(c), Florida Statutes
(2009).

The trial court granted Appellees' motion to dismiss with
prejudice, finding the four-year statute of limitations had run
before the filing of the complaint because the cause of action
accrued no later than 2002, the date the DDA's boundaries were
last expanded, as alleged in Milan's complaint.

Milan appealed.  The Appeals court affirmed in part, reversed in
part, and remanded for further proceedings in the trial court.

On remand, Milan filed an amended complaint, wherein it again
asserted the 2008 ordinance levying the DDA tax was
unconstitutional, but also included the 2009 and 2010 ordinances
levying the DDA tax on its properties for the 2009 and 2010 tax
years. Milan sought, on its own behalf and on behalf of the
alleged class, declaratory relief, money damages and/or refunds of
the taxes, which it had already paid, and also sought relief under
the Federal Civil Rights Act, 42 USC Section 1983.  The Appellees
again moved to dismiss, but the motion was denied.

Milan also filed a second lawsuit against the Appellees, seeking
the same relief for the 2011 tax year and a third lawsuit, seeking
the same relief for the 2012 tax year.

The Appellees filed motions for summary judgment in all three
cases, which had been assigned to the same circuit court judge.
Milan also moved for summary judgment in all three cases, and
after a hearing, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor
of the Appellees, and denied Milan's motions for summary judgment.
The consolidated appeals followed.

Judge Emas affirmed the trial court's summary judgment orders and
held that the city was authorized, and continues to be authorized,
to levy the ad valorem taxes in the city's downtown development
area.

A copy of Judge Emas's opinion dated May 27, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/vu1hSzfrom Leagle.com.

Linda L. Carroll, for appellant

R.A. Cuevas Jr., Miami-Dade County Attorney, and Jorge Martinez-
Estevez, Assistant County Attorney; Victoria Mendez, City
Attorney, and John A. Greco, Deputy City Attorney, and Warren
Bittner, Deputy Emeritus; Cole, Scott & Kissane and Thomas E.
Scott, Sr., and Scott A. Cole, for appellees

The Fla. Dist. Ct. App. panel consists of Judges Linda Ann Wells,
Kevin Emas and Edwin A. Scales, III.


MICHAEL'S NEIGHBORHOOD: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ramon Camarillo Cazares, on behalf of himself and all other
Plaintiffs similarly situated v. Michael's Neighborhood Pub,
Inc. d/b/a Firewater Saloon, and Jamie Suckow, Case No. 1:15-cv-
06194 (N.D. Ill., July 15, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for work more
than 40 hours in individual work week.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant and bar within the
State of Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nicholas Paul Cholis, Esq.
      Timothy M. Nolan, Esq.
      NOLAN LAW OFFICE
      53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1137
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Telephone: (312) 322-1100
      Facsimile: (312) 322-1106
      E-mail: n.cholis.nolanlaw@sbcglobal.net
              tmnolanlaw@sbcglobal.net


MILLENNIUM RESOURCES: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Borrego, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Millennium Resources, LP, Case No. 4:15-cv-00037-RAJ
(W.D. Tex., July 14, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Millennium Resources, LP operates an oilfield services company and
maintains its principal place of business in Big Spring, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James W. Hryekewicz, Esq.
      BLAIES & HIGHTOWER, LLP
      421 W. 3rd Street, Suite 900
      Fort Worth, TX 76102
      Telephone: (817) 334-0800
      Facsimile: (817) 334-0574
      E-mail: jwh@bhilaw.com


MOBIL EXPLORATION: Defendant's Third Bid to Dismiss Suit Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the Eastern District of
Louisiana granted defendant's motion to dismiss in the case
CATHERINE M. BERNARD, ET AL., v. JOSEPH GREFER, ET AL., SECTION
"L" (2), CIVIL ACTION NO.. 14-887 (E.D. La.)

Plaintiffs filed a suit alleging personal injuries and property
damages that resulted from alleged exposure to naturally occurring
radioactive material also known as technologically enhanced
radioactive materials as part of oil operations by various pipe-
cleaning defendants.

Defendant Transco Exploration Co. removed the case to the federal
district court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act.
Defendant Mobil Exploration & Producing Southeast, Inc. (MOEPSI)
is named in the original complaint. MOEPSI filed its first Motion
to Dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Proc. Rules 12(b)(4) and 12(b)(5)
on September 22, 2014 which plaintiffs failed to oppose.

Subsequent to the motion, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
December 23, 2014. MOEPSI re-urged its motion to dismiss, alleging
that it was never served with the original petition, despite the
fact that plaintiffs named them as a defendant therein. Rather,
plaintiffs served Mobil Exploration & Producing U.S., Inc (MEPUS),
a related but separate corporate entity not named as a defendant
in the suit. After filing their amended complaint, plaintiffs
again sought service on MEPUS.

MOEPSI averred that it should be dismissed from the action, as it
had not been properly served.

Plaintiffs again failed to respond to MOEPSI's motion. The court
ordered the plaintiffs to show cause why the court should not
grant defendant's unopposed motion and dismiss plaintiffs' claims
against MOEPSI for a failure to prosecute under rule 41(b). The
court gave plaintiffs until February 19, 2015 to respond, and
plaintiffs responded on the final day.

The court ordered plaintiffs to file an opposition to MOEPSI's
second motion to dismiss on or before March 6, 2015 or the court
would dismiss plaintiffs' claims against MOEPSI for a failure to
prosecute under Rule 41(b). Plaintiffs responded by leave of
court, arguing that their action should be maintained because
MOEPSI had failed to show any prejudice created by the defective
service. Plaintiffs argued that because the defect was minor,
MOEPSI's motion should be denied.

On March 17, 2015 the court ordered plaintiffs to properly serve
MOEPSI with the complaint and summons, or to obtain a waiver of
service, no later than March 27.

MOEPSI filed its third motion to dismiss for plaintiffs' failure
to effectuate proper service. MOEPSI argues that plaintiffs have
failed to properly serve MOEPSI under Federal Rule of Procedure 4.
MOEPSI contends that Article 1261 of the Louisiana Code of Civil
Procedure governs service in the instant case. MOEPSI maintains
that plaintiffs failed to effectuate proper service under Article
1261 because plaintiffs merely requested service on MOEPSI through
the Louisiana Secretary of State. Plaintiffs did not oppose the
motion.

Judge Fallon granted defendant's motion to dismiss and plaintiffs'
claim against defendant MOEPSI are dismissed with prejudice.

A copy of Judge Fallon's order and reasons dated June 1, 2015 is
available at http://is.gd/zAc26efrom Leagle.com.

Catherine M Bernard, Plaintiff, represented by George Febiger
Riess, Law Offices of George F. Riess & Associates, LLC, Dwight
Jefferson, Coats, Rose, Yale, Ryman & Lee, P.C. & James L. Wright,
Law Offices of Environmental Litigation Group, P.C.

Alvarez A Brown, Plaintiff, represented by George Febiger Riess,
Law Offices of George F. Riess & Associates, LLC, Dwight
Jefferson, Coats, Rose, Yale, Ryman & Lee, P.C. & James L. Wright,
Law Offices of Environmental Litigation Group, P.C.

Mary Louise Butler, Plaintiff, represented by George Febiger
Riess, Law Offices of George F. Riess & Associates, LLC, Dwight
Jefferson, Coats, Rose, Yale, Ryman & Lee, P.C. & James L. Wright,
Law Offices of Environmental Litigation Group, P.C.

Shirley Ann Chase, Plaintiff, represented by George Febiger Riess,
Law Offices of George F. Riess & Associates, LLC, Dwight
Jefferson, Coats, Rose, Yale, Ryman & Lee, P.C. & James L. Wright,
Law Offices of Environmental Litigation Group, P.C.

Robert Coleman, et al, Plaintiff, represented by George Febiger
Riess, Law Offices of George F. Riess & Associates, LLC, Dwight
Jefferson, Coats, Rose, Yale, Ryman & Lee, P.C. & James L. Wright,
Law Offices of Environmental Litigation Group, P.C.

Rivers Davis, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by George Febiger Riess,
Law Offices of George F. Riess & Associates, LLC, Dwight
Jefferson, Coats, Rose, Yale, Ryman & Lee, P.C. & James L. Wright,
Law Offices of Environmental Litigation Group, P.C.

Lafabian A. Fluker, Plaintiff, represented by George Febiger
Riess, Law Offices of George F. Riess & Associates, LLC, Dwight
Jefferson, Coats, Rose, Yale, Ryman & Lee, P.C. & James L. Wright,
Law Offices of Environmental Litigation Group, P.C.

Joseph William Burkess, Plaintiff, represented by George Febiger
Riess, Law Offices of George F. Riess & Associates, LLC, Dwight
Jefferson, Coats, Rose, Yale, Ryman & Lee, P.C. & James L. Wright,
Law Offices of Environmental Litigation Group, P.C.

Dionne Monique Clofer, Plaintiff, represented by George Febiger
Riess, Law Offices of George F. Riess & Associates, LLC, Dwight
Jefferson, Coats, Rose, Yale, Ryman & Lee, P.C. & James L. Wright,
Law Offices of Environmental Litigation Group, P.C..

Exxon-Mobil Corporation, Defendant, represented by Glen Marion
Pilie, Adams & Reese, LLP, Donald Cole Massey, Adams & Reese, LLP,
E. Paige Sensenbrenner, Adams & Reese, LLP, John Jerry Glas,
Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Martin Alan Stern, Adams & Reese,
LLP, Raymond C. Lewis, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Roland M.
Vandenweghe, Jr., Adams & Reese, LLP, Valeria M. Sercovich, Adams
& Reese, LLP & William Everard Wright, Jr., Deutsch, Kerrigan &
Stiles, LLP

Intracoastal Tubular Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Thomas E. Balhoff, Roedel, Parsons, Koch, Blache, Balhoff &
McCollister & Carlton Jones, III, Roedel, Parsons, Koch, Blache,
Balhoff & McCollister

OFS, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles Bruce Colvin,
Kingsmill Riess, LLC, Marguerite Kern Kingsmill, Kingsmill Riess,
LLC & R. A. Osborn, Jr., Osborn & Osborn

Shell Offshore, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mary S. Johnson,
Johnson, Gray, McNamara, LLC,Chadwick J. Mollere, Johnson, Gray,
McNamara, LLC, Jill Thompson Losch, Johnson, Gray, McNamara, LLC &
Nichole M. Gray, Johnson Gray McNamara


MONEY STORE: Judge Rejects Bid for New Trial in "Mazzei" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John G. Koeltl of the Southern District of New York
denied plaintiffs' motion for new trial and granted defendants'
motion to decertify the Late Fee Class in the case JOSEPH MAZZEI,
ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff,
v. THE MONEY STORE, ET AL., Defendants, NO. 01 CV 5694 (JGK)
(S.D.N.Y.)

In 1994, plaintiff Joseph Mazzei, took out a mortgage loan from
The Money Store on his home in Sacramento, California. After
Mazzei defaulted on his loan, The Money Store charged him various
fees, which Mazzei paid when he paid off the loan in full in
October 2000. Thereafter, Mazzei sued The Money Store and related
defendants TMS Mortgage, Inc. (TMS) and HomEq Servicing Inc.,
alleging, among other claims, that the Money Store defendants were
not permitted to charge certain fees under the uniform mortgage
note signed by Mazzei and The Money Store.

The Money Store was a second mortgage lender and a loan servicer.
The defendant TMS was the servicing operator for The Money Store.
In 1999, First Union Bank purchased The Money Store and closed The
Money Store's loan origination business. Thereafter, The Money
Store became HomEq Servicing Inc.

The court eventually certified two classes: (1) a Post
Acceleration Late Fee Class, (the Late Fee Class), on whose behalf
Mazzei asserted a breach of contract claim alleging that borrowers
were assessed late fees after their loans were accelerated in
breach of the Uniform Note; and (2) a Fee Split Class, on whose
behalf Mazzei asserted a breach of contract claim alleging that
borrowers were assessed attorneys' fees that were improperly
shared with a nonlawyer entity, Fidelity National Solutions
(Fidelity), in breach of the Uniform Note.

After a two week trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of
Mazzei and the Late Fee Class on the first claim and in favor of
the defendants on the second claim. The defendants now move for
decertification of the Late Fee Class pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(c)(1), and, in the alternative, for judgment as
a matter of law as to the Late Fee claim pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure Rule 50(b). The plaintiff moves for a new trial
as to the Fee Split claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59.

A copy of Judge Koeltl's opinion and order dated May 29, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/22IORffrom Leagle.com.

Joseph Mazzei, Plaintiff, represented by:

Mark S. Kaufman, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF MARK S. KAUFMAN
360 Lexington Ave, Suite 1600
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: 212-293-5556
Facsimile: 212-682-6425

     - and -

Christopher Matthew Van de Kieft, Esq.
Moshe H. Horn, Esq.
SEEGER WEISS LLP
77 Water Street
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: 212-584-0700
Email: cvandekieft@seegerweiss.com
       mhorn@seegerweiss.com

     - and -


Kenneth Foard McCallion, Esq.
MCCALLION & ASSOCIATES LLP
100 Park Avenue, suite 1600
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: 646-366-0880
Facsimile: 914-698-2816

     - and -

Neal Arthur DeYoung, Esq.
9 Gopher Rd
Newtown, CT 06470-1001
Telephone: 203-7558

     - and -

Paul Stewart Grobman, Esq.
555 5th Ave., 17th Fl.
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: 212-983-5880

Defendants, represented by Daniel A. Pollack --
dpollack@mccarter.com -- Anthony Zaccaria --
azaccaria@mccarter.com -- Edward T. McDermott --
emcdermott@mccarter.com -- Minji Kim -- mikim@mccarter.com -- at
McCarter & English, LLP; Krista Ann Friedrich --
kfriedrich@cahill.com -- Thomas J Kavaler -- tkavaler@cahill.com
-- at Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP


MONROE COUNTY, NY: Judge Narrows Claims in Suit over Roll Call
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge David G. Larimer of the Western District of New
York granted in part and denied in part parties' motions in the
case JOHN A. CRESPO, Jr.; MICHAEL J. AQUILINA; MARY ANN AUCKLAND;
CHARLIE BARKOWSKI; STEVEN A. CAPPON; JAMES DeCANN; CHRISTOPHER
HOWELL; VINCENT LOMBARDINI; RICHARD M. ORSINO; ROBERTO ORTIZ;
DANIEL POWELL; JOHN TADDONIO; KENNETH M. WILLIS, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
COUNTY OF MONROE, NEW YORK; MONROE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT;
PATRICK M. O'FLYNN, in his official capacity as MONROE COUNTY
SHERIFF, Defendants, NO. 10-CV-6590L (W.D.N.Y.)

Plaintiffs are composed of Deputy Sheriff Court Security Sergeant
(sergeant) and Deputy Sheriff Court Security (deputy). The parties
do not dispute that at the beginning of their shifts, deputies are
required to attend a 15-minute "roll call briefing." Sergeants are
required to attend their own 15-minute roll call briefing, and
then to attend and administer the deputies' 15-minute briefing. In
other words, sergeants begin work 30 minutes before their shifts
formally begin, and deputies begin work 15 minutes prior to their
shifts. Those roll call briefings are not counted in plaintiffs'
basic 37.5-hour workweek.

The collective bargaining agreement (CBA) governing plaintiffs'
employment provides for a 37.5-hour workweek, from Monday through
Friday or in other words, plaintiffs work a 7.5-hour shift each
workday.

With respect to the briefings, the CBA states that in recognition
of the fact that all members of the bargaining unit are required
to assemble for a briefing fifteen (15) minutes prior to the
beginning of their tour of duty, payment for roll call shall be
made. Sergeants are paid a lump-sum payment of $88 per pay period
for those briefings, while deputies receive $60 per pay period..

Under the CBA, the plaintiffs are paid at their contractual hourly
rate for all hours worked up to 37.5 hours in a workweek. The CBA
further states that, hours worked between 37.5 and 40 hours within
the workweek shall be paid for in compensatory time off at the
straight time rate. For all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in
a workweek, the CBA provides that employees will be paid at one
and a half times the employee's basic contractual rate

When calculating overtime, the CBA provides that hours paid but
not worked for holidays, compensatory time off and vacation leave
are counted as time worked and that compensatory time may be
considered a manner of payment in-lieu of overtime at the option
of the employee.

Plaintiffs brought an action on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29
U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., and the New York Labor Law. They
allege that defendants Monroe County, the Sheriff's Department,
and Patrick O'Flynn, who is sued in his official capacity as
Monroe County Sheriff have violated the statutes in a number of
ways, which generally relate to plaintiffs' pay for attending or
conducting roll call briefings, which are meetings that take place
at the start of plaintiffs' shifts.

Defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Plaintiffs have cross-moved for summary judgment on the issue of
liability.

Judge Larimer granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' and
defendants' motions for summary judgment.

A copy of Judge Larimer's decision and order dated May 20, 2015,
is available at http://is.gd/tf4Klvfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Brian Joseph LaClair --
bjlaclair@bklawyers.com -- Blitman & King LLP & Jules L. Smith --
jlsmith@bklawyers.com -- at Blitman & King LLP

County of Monroe, New York, Defendant, represented by Peter J.
Spinelli -- pspinelli@harrisbeach.com -- Daniel J. Moore --
dmoore@harrisbeach.com -- Joshua D. Steele --
jsteele@harrisbeach.com -- at Harris Beach LLP


NEMET MOTORS: Faces "Singh" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Manhar Singh, individually and on behalf of all individuals
similarly situated v. Nemet Motors, LLC Steve Armengau, Mitch
Rolnick, and John Uva, Case No. 2:15-cv-04151 (E.D.N.Y., July 15,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are in the business of selling, leasing, and
repairing automobiles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Saul D. Zabell, Esq.
      ZABELL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      One Corporate Drive
      Suite 103
      Bohemia, NY 11716
      Telephone: (631) 589-7242
      Facsimile: (631) 563-7475
      E-mail: SZabell@laborlawsny.com


NEW JERSEY: Court Rules in Race Bias Suit v. Educ Department
------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Jerome B. Simandle of the District of New
Jersey ruled on the defendants' motions in the case ANTHONY C.
WRIGHT, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY/DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
and PETER SHULMAN, in his official and individual capacities
Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-08002 (JBS/AMD) (D.N.J.)

Anthony Wright is an African American male over the age of 40 and
has been employed by the Department of Education for approximately
ten years. He applied for a more senior level position within the
department, alleging that he exceeded the qualifications for the
position. Plaintiff was chosen for an interview along with two
other candidates.

Defendant Peter Shulman was the Assistant Commissioner and Chief
Talent Officer for the Department of Education and was a close
personal friend of Katherine Westerhold, the Chairperson of the
interview panel who conducted the interviews for the position.

Plaintiff alleges that the procedures were not followed when
Shulman, charged with making the ultimate hiring decision, passed
over him for the promotion and granted the position to Mamie
Doyle, a Caucasian female in her late twenties. Plaintiff brought
suit against the Department of Education and Shulman, who is sued
in his official and individual capacity, asserting gender and race
discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 (Title VII), 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-2 (Title VII), and an
age discrimination claim under the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. Section 623.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1), Defendants
filed a motion to dismiss all claims against Shulman and the ADEA
claim against the Department of Education. In response to the
motion, plaintiff withdrew the Title VII claims against Shulman
(Counts One and Two) but opposed the defendants' motion with
respect to the ADEA claim (Count Three) against both Shulman and
the Department of Education.

Chief District Judge Simandle granted defendants' motion to
dismiss all claims against Shulman and the ADEA claim against the
Department of Education. Count Three will accordingly be
dismissed, and Shulman will be dismissed as defendant.

A copy of Chief District Judge Simandle's opinion dated July 14,
2015, is available at http://goo.gl/TXlJktfrom Leagle.com.

For the Plaintiff:

Heidi R. Weintraub, Esq.
801 N Kings Hwy
Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
Telephone: 856-406-1990

Agnes Irene Rymer, Deputy Attorney General, Cheryl A. Citera,
Deputy Attorney General State of New Jersey Office of the Attorney
General, Trenton, NJ, Attorneys for the Defendant


NIBCO INC: Judge Narrows Claim in "Cole" Suit
---------------------------------------------
District Judge Freda L. Wolfson of the District of New Jersey
granted in part and denied in part defendant's partial motion to
dismiss in the case KIMBERLY COLE, ALAN COLE, JAMES MONICA, LINDA
BOYD, MICHAEL MCMAHON, RAY SMINKEY, JAMES MEDDERS, JUDY MEDDERS,
ROBERT PEPERNO, SARAH PEPERNO, and KELLY MCCOY, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
NIBCO, Inc. Defendant, CIV. NO. 3:13-CV-07871 (FLW)(TJB) (D.N.J.)

Defendant NIBCO, Inc. is an Indiana Corporation that manufactures,
warrants, advertises and sells cross-linked Polyethylene (PEX)
products. Plaintiffs are nine homeowners from seven states,
bringing a putative class action on behalf of themselves and a
nationwide class, or alternatively, putative New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Alabama, Georgia, Texas, Oklahoma, and Tennessee
state subclasses.

Plaintiffs allege that the PEX Products all suffer from design
and/or manufacturing defects that allow water to escape their
homes' plumbing systems and cause damage to both the PEX Products
and the homes in which they are installed. Specifically,
plaintiffs allege that the PEX Tubing is prone to premature
oxidative failure and creep rupture, 2 the PEX Fittings are prone
to dezincification corrosion, and 3 the PEX Clamps are prone to
failure b chloride-induced stress corrosion cracking.

Plaintiffs allege that NIBCO breached an express warranty (Count
I); breached the implied warranty of merchantability (Count II);
breached the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose
(Count III); was negligent in the design, testing, and manufacture
of its products (Count IV); violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act, N.J. STAT. ANN. Section 56:8-1 et seq. (NJCFA) (Count V);
violated the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law, 73 PA. CONS. STAT. ANN Section 201-1, et seq.
(UTPCPL) (Count VI); violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices
Act, TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE ANN. Section 17.41, et seq. (TDTPA)
(Count VII); violated the Oklahoma Deceptive Trade Practices Act,
OKLA. STAT. ANN. tit. 78 Section 51-55, et seq. (ODTPA); and was
unjustly enriched (Count IX). In Count X, plaintiffs request
declaratory relief and an injunction.

The Defendant filed a partial motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
complaint for failure to state a claim.

Judge Wolfson granted in part and denied in part defendant's
partial motion to dismiss.

A copy of Judge Wolfson's opinion dated May 20, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/FoBqrSfrom Leagle.com.

KIMBERLY COLE, ALAN COLE and JAMES MONICA, Plaintiffs, represented
by BENJAMIN F. JOHNS -- BenJohns@chimicles.com -- JOSEPH G. SAUDER
-- JosephSauder@chimicles.com -- MATTHEW D. SCHELKOPF --
MatthewSchelkopf@chimicles.com -- at CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS, LLP;
BRUCE DANIEL GREENBERG -- bgreenberg@litedepalma.com -- at LITE
DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC; DANIEL HOGAN -- HoganD@StutmanLaw.com --
MICHAEL J. HOPKINS -- HopkinsM@StutmanLaw.com -- at LAW OFFICES OF
ROBERT A. STUTMAN PC

LINDA BOYD, JAMES MEDDERS, KELLY McCOY, SARAH PEPERNO, JUDY
MEDDERS, MICHAEL MCMAHON, RAY SMINKEY, ROBERT PEPERNO, Plaintiffs,
represented by BRUCE DANIEL GREENBERG --
bgreenberg@litedepalma.com -- at LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC

NIBCO, INC., Defendant, represented by JOHN MCGAHREN --
jmcgahren@morganlewis.com -- STEPHANIE A. BLAIR --
sblair@morganlewis.com -- FRANCO A. CORRADO --
fcorrado@morganlewis.com -- at MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP; ROBERT
T. CONNOR -- rconnor@kjmsh.com -- at KELLEY JASONS MCGOWAN
SPINELLI HANNA & REBER LLP


NORTH CAROLINA: Court Tosses Inmate's Complaint
-----------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Frank D. Whitney of the Western District of
North Carolina, Charlotte Division dismissed plaintiff's complaint
in the case MARCUS ALSTON, Plaintiff, v. GEORGE T. SOLOMON, DAVID
MITCHELL, NORTH CAROLINA DEP'T OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Defendants, NO.
3:14-CV-250-FDW (W.D.N.C.)

Marcus Alston, a prisoner of the State of North Carolina, filed a
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging that the
defendants have violated his constitutional rights based on an
assault occurring on January 25, 2014, and an unreasonable search
and seizure which he contends took place on February 21, 2014.
Plaintiff also presents allegations regarding assaults and other
constitutional violations involving several other inmates and
Plaintiff purports to bring this matter as a class action on their
behalf. Plaintiff identifies Defendant George T. Solomon as the
Director of Prisons for the North Carolina Department of Public
Safety, and Defendant David Mitchell as the Administrator of
Lanesboro Correctional Institution.

Chief District Judge Whitney finds that plaintiff has failed to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted and dismisses
plaintiff's complaint without prejudice.

A copy of Chief District Judge Whitney's order dated May 29, 2015,
is available at http://is.gd/bQR9eBfrom Leagle.com.

Marcus Alston, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


NYC SABLE: "Rosendo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Timoteo Rosendo, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
employees v. NYC Sable INC. d/b/a Sable's Smoked Fish, Danny Sze,
Kenny Sze, and Andy Sze, Case No. 1:15-cv-05462-JPO (S.D.N.Y.,
July 14, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a seafood restaurant located at
1489 Second Avenue, New York, New York 10021.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Giustino Cilenti, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, P.L.L.C.
      708 Third Avenue, 6th Flr
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 209-3933
      Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
      E-mail: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com


OCWEN LOAN: Faces "Denham" Suit Over Inaccurate Consumer Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Denham v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC and Does 1 to 10,
inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-05273 (C.D. Cal., July 14, 2015),
arises out of the Defendant's practice of furnishing inaccurate
consumer information to consumer reporting agencies.

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Company,
headquartered in the State of Florida. Ocwen has a multibillion
portfolio of mortgage loans under management and is one of the
country's largest servicers of mortgage loans.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      G. Thomas Martin III, Esq.
      Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq.
      MARTIN & BONTRAGER, APC
      6464 W. Sunset Blvd., Suite 960
      Los Angeles, CA 90028
      Telephone: (323) 940-1700
      Facsimile: (323) 238-8095
      E-mail: tom@mblawapc.com
              nick@mblawapc.com


OCWEN LOAN: W.D. Wash. Judge Tosses "Bess" Suit
-----------------------------------------------
District Judge Benjamin H. Settle of the Western District of
Washington, Tacoma, granted a motion to dismiss the case NANCY
BESS, individually, and as Personal Representative of the Estate
of Gary Ray Bess, deceased, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Defendant, CASE
NO. C15-5020 BHS (W.D. Wash.)

Gary Bess married Nancy Bess and resided in Port Orchard
Washington. In November 2007 Gary Bess obtained a mortgage loan
from GMAC Mortgage LLC that was secured by a Deed of Trust on the
Bess residence, were both Gary and Nancy Bess executed the Deed of
Trust.

On May 27, 2012, Gary Bess died intestate. The loan obligations
became delinquent following Gary Bess's death. The Deed of Trust
was ultimately assigned to defendant Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC
(Ocwen). On October 31, 2013, Ocwen and/or its agents entered the
Bess residence and removed existing locks, installed new locks,
placed a lock-box on the residence, and removed personal property.
On March 7, 2014, Ocwen initiated non-judicial foreclosure
proceedings on the Bess residence by sending a Notice of Default
to Bess. On July 29, 2014, the non-judicial foreclosure was
completed when a Trustee's Deed was recorded.

On November 10, 2014, Nancy Bess filed a class action complaint
against Ocwen in Kitsap County Superior Court and alleges common
law trespass, statutory trespass, violations of chapter 61.24 RCW,
Washington's Deed of Trust Act (DTA), violations of chapter 19.86
RCW, Washington's Consumer Protection Act (CPA), breach of
contract, and unjust enrichment. Nancy Bess brought her claims as
an individual and as the personal representative for the Estate of
Gary Bess.

On January 12, 2015, Ocwen removed the case to the federal
district court. The next day, Ocwen moved to dismiss Bess's
claims, which the court granted and dismisses Bess's common law
trespass, statutory trespass, DTA, and unjust enrichment claims
without leave to amend.  The court granted Bess leave to amend her
breach of contract and CPA claims and determined that Bess lacked
standing to bring claims as the personal representative for the
Estate.

On March 27, 2015, Bess filed her first amended complaint and
alleges common law trespass, statutory trespass, violation of RCW
7.28.230, violation of the DTA, violations of the CPA, breach of
contract, and unjust enrichment. Bess brings her claims as an
individual and as the personal representative for the Estate. On
April 9, 2015, Ocwen moved to dismiss Bess's amended complaint.

Judge Settle granted defendant's motion to dismiss and granted
plaintiff leave to amend her complaint.  A copy of Judge Settle's
order dated June 1, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/vCMtL3from
Leagle.com.

Nancy Bess, Plaintiff, represented by Clay M Gatens --
clayg@jdsalaw.com -- Honea Lee Lewis -- leel@jdsalaw.com -- at
JEFFERS DANIELSON SONN & AYLWARD; Michael Duane Daudt --
mdaudt@tmdwlaw.com -- at TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC

Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC, Defendant, represented by Brian M Forbes
-- brian.m.forbes@klgates.com -- Robert W Sparkes --
robert.sparkes@klgates.com -- Joanne M Hepburn --
joanne.hepburn@klgates.com -- at K&L GATES LLP


PENNSYLVANIA: Judge Tosses Inmate Suit Over Street Time Credit
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Gerald J. Pappert of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania granted defendants' motion to dismiss in the case
ROBERT SHOFFNER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL WENEROWICZ, et
al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-00392 (E.D. Pa.)

Robert Shoffner, Robert Thornton, Daniel Myers, and Steven
Stauffer are former prisoners who were allegedly incarcerated
beyond their maximum sentences in violation their constitutional
rights. They allege that they were in state prison and
subsequently released on parole. When their parole was later
revoked, they were awarded street time credit that should have
reduced the amount of time they were to remain incarcerated.

Defendants, however, failed to properly communicate and implement
the credits, even though plaintiffs notified them of the problem
through the prison grievance system. Plaintiffs consequently
remained in state prison beyond their maximum sentences before
ultimately being released.

Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated their Fourth Amendment
right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and their
Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual
punishment by holding them in custody beyond their maximum
sentences. They sue defendants in both their individual and their
official capacities pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. With
regard to defendants in their individual capacities, plaintiffs
demand money damages. With regard to defendants in their official
capacities, plaintiffs demand declaratory and injunctive relief to
ensure that they are not on parole under supervision of the Board
and to ensure defendants establish an adequate system to deal with
awards of street time credit. Plaintiffs seek damages and
prospective injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and the
members of a putative class. Defendants move to dismiss those
claims.

Judge Pappert granted defendants' motion to dismiss but allows
plaintiffs' to amend their complaint

A copy of Judge Pappert's memorandum dated July 13, 2015, is
available at http://goo.gl/Hb1k5sfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by BRIAN J. ZEIGER --
zeiger@levinzeiger.com -- at LEVIN & ZEIGER LLP

Defendants, represented by KEVIN R. BRADFORD, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL


PHIL & TEDS: Recalls Seat Liners Due to Chemical Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 14, 2015
Posting date: July 14, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Toys
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Chemical Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-54196

This recall involves the phil & teds Cushy Ride seat liner.  Two
models of the Cushy Ride seat liner are affected, a main seat
liner (model#VCR) and a smaller second seat liner (model #VDKCR).
This padded liner comes in various colours, such as light blue,
pink, mustard yellow and olive. It provides added comfort and is
intended for use in children's strollers.

Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has revealed that
this product made, in whole or in part, of polyurethane foam (PUF)
contains tris (2-chlorethyl) phosphate (TCEP) and can pose a
chemical hazard to young children.

TCEP is an industrial chemical with flame retardant properties. It
is commonly used as a plasticizer and viscosity regulator with
flame retardant properties in polyurethanes. Children's
polyurethane foam products that contain TCEP have the potential to
cause harmful effects in children under three years of age.
Migration of TCEP from PUF products as a result of young
children's mouthing behaviour, such as sucking or chewing, may
contribute to oral exposure to this substance, including through
fabric coverings. TCEP is considered a carcinogen for which there
may be a probability of harm at any level of exposure and it may
cause impaired fertility in males.

Neither phil & teds nor Health Canada has received any consumer
reports of incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use
of this polyurethane foam product.

Approximately 531 units of the recalled products were sold in
Canada.

The recalled products were sold from December 2009 to July 2015.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: phil & teds
              Wellington
              NEW ZEALAND

Distributor: phil & teds
             Fort Collins
             UNITED STATES

Consumer should immediately stop using the recalled product.
These products should be discarded in your household garbage in
such a way that they cannot be used or re-sold.  Contact phil &
teds USA for more information on product replacement.

For additional information, consumers may contact phil & teds
customer service line at 1-855-652-9019 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m. MT Monday through Friday, or by email.  You may also visit
phil & teds' website to register to receive a replacement product.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.


This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product
Recalls website.  You can visit this site for more information on
other international consumer product recalls.


PHILIP GUTWORTH: Settlement in "Weissman" Case Has Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge William H. Walls of the District of New
Jersey granted plaintiff's motion for final certification and
final approval of the settlement agreement in the case ADAM M.
WEISSMAN, Plaintiff, v. PHILIP C. GUTWORTH, P.A. and PHILIP C.
GUTWORTH, Defendants, CIV. NO. 2:14-CV-00666 (WHW) (CLW) (D.N.J.)

Adam Weissman filed a class action complaint against defendants
Philip Gutworth and his law firm, Philip Gutworth, P.A., which
alleges that defendants violated the FDCPA, 28 U.S.C. Section
1692g(a)(4), by sending plaintiff an insufficiently detailed debt
collection letter. Plaintiff asserts that the letter unlawfully
failed to notify him that, should he dispute the status of his
debt, he was required to do so in writing within thirty days.
Plaintiff brought the action both individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, alleging that it was defendants'
policy and practice to send such deficient letters.

Plaintiff and defendants reached a settlement agreement and the
court preliminarily approved it.

In consideration of the release and discharge, defendants will pay
$7,900 into an escrow account:

     $3,500 of this amount will be paid to Mr. Weissman and
     $4,400 will be distributed pro rata to the other class
            members.

The $3,500 amount to be paid to Mr. Weissman represents a $1,000
statutory recovery and a $2,500 incentive award. The $4,400 amount
is to be sent in $100 individual payments to the forty-four
existing class members identified by defendants. Any funds
remaining in escrow will be paid to Essex-Newark Legal Services.
The settlement agreement also provides that defendants will pay
$20,000 to the class counsel, Philip Stern, Esq., for costs and
fees.

A copy of Senior District Judge Walls's opinion dated May 23,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/QIwmxkfrom Leagle.com.

ADAM M. WEISSMAN, Plaintiff, represented by:

PHILIP D. STERN, Esq.
PHILIP D. STERN ATTORNEY AT LAW LLC
2816 Morris Avenue, Suite 30
Union, NJ 07083-4870
Telephone: 973-379-7500

Defendants, represented by JEFFREY SCOTT LEONARD --
JLeonard@morganlawfirm.com -- MEREDITH KAPLAN STOMA --
MStoma@morganlawfirm.com -- at MORGAN MELHUISH ABRUTYN



PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces "Stein" Suit Over FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Moshe D. Stein, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, L.L.C.,
Docket No. 1:15-cv-04140 (E.D.N.Y., July 15, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
      ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
      483 Chestnut Street
      Cedarhurst, NY 11516
      Telephone: (516) 791-4400
      Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
      E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


PRIZE CANDLE: Sued in California Over Illegal Lottery Operation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Trax, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Prize Candle, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-01563-CAB-KSC
(S.D. Cal., July 15, 2015), alleges that the Defendant owns and
operates unlawful lotteries by manufacturing and selling certain
products, including, but not limited to, candles that contain a
ring and a chance to win a $5,000 Prize, which are regularly
distributed to consumers by chance and for consideration.

Prize Candle, LLC is a Delaware corporation that manufactures
candles that promise the purchaser, after burning the candle, a
ring or a charm bracelet and a chance to win a $5,000 prize.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      Mohammad Kazerouni, Esq.
      Gouya Ranekouhi, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
              mike@kazlg.com
              gouya@kazlg.com


RAPID MORTGAGE: Faces "Oakes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Winfield Oakes, David Steele, and Pete Johnson, for themselves and
others similarly situated v. Rapid Mortgage Co. and Dennis M.
Fisher, Case No. 1:15-cv-00463-TSB (S.D. Ohio, July 14, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Rapid Mortgage Co. is an Ohio for-profit corporation that provides
financial products and home mortgages.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James P. Langendorf, Esq.
      1081 N. University Blvd., Suite A
      Middletown, OH 45042
      Telephone: (513) 705-4104
      Facsimile: (513) 705-4106
      E-mail: jamesplang@aol.com


SHO-ME POWER: Judge Awards Legal Fees to Class Counsel
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey of the Western District of
Missouri, Central Division granted plaintiffs' motion in the case
CHASE BARFIELD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SHO-ME POWER ELECTRIC
COOPERATIVE, et al., Defendants, NO. 2:11-CV-4321NKL (W.D. Mo.)

On July 25, 2013, the court entered an order certifying a class
with claims against defendants Sho-Me Power Electric Cooperative
and its subsidiary, Sho-Me Technologies, LLC, and KAMO Electric
Cooperative, Inc. and its subsidiary, K-PowerNet, LLC.

After the class was certified, plaintiffs and KAMO-KPN filed
cross-motions for summary judgment based on an appendix which
summarized and catalogued easements into categories based on the
language contained in the easements.

On March 31, 2014, the court:

     -- granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the
issue of defendants' liability as to claims involving Category 1A-
1C easements,

     -- denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the
issue of defendants' liability as to claims involving Category 1D-
1E, 2A-2B, and 3 easements,

     -- granted KAMO-KPN's motion for summary judgment against
plaintiff chase Barfield,

     -- granted KAMO-KPN's motion for summary judgment on the
issue of liability as to claims involving Category 1D, 2A-2B, and
3 easements,

     -- denied KAMO-KPN's motion for summary judgment on the issue
of liability as to claims involving Category 1A-1C and 1E
easements, and

     -- granted in part and denied in part Sho-Me's motion for
summary judgment against the KAMO Class Members.

On December 5, 2014, plaintiffs and KAMO-KPN moved under Rule
23(e) for an order preliminarily approving the proposed settlement
of the KAMO Class Members' claims in accordance with the KAMO-KPN
Class Settlement Agreement and approving the form and plan of
notice of the proposed settlement, which the court approved. The
total gross value of the settlement is $6,500,000, comprised of
$3,933,333 in cash benefits paid to qualifying KAMO Class Members,
administrative costs of $400,000 to be paid separately by KAMO-
KPN, and the agreed-to attorneys' fees and expenses of $2,166,167.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for award of attorneys' fees and
expenses to class counsel.

Judge Laughrey granted plaintiffs' motion and an awarded
$2,166,667 to class counsel as a form of attorneys' fees and
expenses.

A copy of Judge Laughrey's findings of fact and conclusions of law
dated June 1, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/M8oJp4from
Leagle.com

Plaintiffs, represented by Cecilia Fex -fex@ackersonlaw.com --
Kathleen C Kauffman - Kauffman@ackersonlaw.com -- at Ackerson
Kauffman Fex, PC; Michael Amberg -- Brad A. Catlin --
bcatlin@price-law.com -- Ronald J. Waicukauski --
rwaicukauski@price-law.com -- F. Alexander O'Neill -- Henry J.
Price -- hprice@price-law.com -- at Price Waicukauski & Riley,
LLC; Matthew A. Clement -- mclement@cvdl.net -- Heidi Doerhoff
Vollet -- hvollet@cvdl.net -- at Cook, Vetter, Doerhoff &
Landwehr, P.C.

Defendants, represented by Christopher M. Hohn --
chohn@thompsoncoburn.com -- David L. Coffman --
dcoffman@thompsoncoburn.com -- Robert Joseph Wagner --
rwagner@thompsoncoburn.com -- W. Stanley Walch --
swalch@thompsoncoburn.com -- Mark A. Mattingly --
mmattingly@thompsoncoburn.com -- Stephen A. D'Aunoy --
sdaunoy@thompsoncoburn.com -- at Thompson Coburn, LLP; Dana L.
Flora -- dkollar@LawOfficeMo.com -- Terry M Evans --
tevans@LawOfficeMo.com


SIVEM PHARMACEUTICALS: Recalls Telmisartan HCTZ Tablets
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 15, 2015
Posting date: July 21, 2015
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Drugs
Hazard classification: Type III
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-54330

Out of specification result for hydrochlorothiazide during
testing.

Depth of distribution: Wholesalers

Affected products:
Telmisartan HCTZ
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
DIN 02390310
Dosage form: Tablet
Strength: Hydrochlorothiazide 25.0 mg
          Telmisartan (Telmisartan Sodium) 80.0 mg
Lot or serial number: 35206686A

Recalling Firm: Sivem Pharmaceuticals ULC
                4705 Dobrin Street
                St. Laurent
                H4R 2P7
                Quebec
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Sivem Pharmaceuticals ULC
                                4705 Dobrin Street
                                St. Laurent
                                H4R 2P7
                                Quebec
                                CANADA


SPARTAN: Recalls 2008 Gladiator Models Due to Defective Tire
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 14, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Brakes
Units affected: 49
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015310TC
ID number: 2015310
Manufacturer recall number: 15012

On certain fire trucks, front tire valve stems may wear against
the brake calipers, potentially resulting in a leak and tire air
loss without warning while the vehicle is in motion. This could
affect vehicle handling, increasing the risk of a crash causing
injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will inspect
and replace valve stems.

  Make       Model        Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----        ----------------------
  SPARTAN    GLADIATOR    2008


SPECIALIZED CANADA: Recalls Pedal Axle Extenders
------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 15, 2015
Posting date: July 15, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Sports/Fitness
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fall Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-54206

This recall involves Pedal Axle Extenders that are used to extend
the outward reach of the pedals. They are sold in pairs and mount
directly into the bicycle crank arms. Pedal Axle Extenders are
made of stainless steel and fit a 9/16 inch pedal thread. They are
labeled with an "L" and an "R", and the UPC is 719676767451.

Specialized Bicycle Components, Inc.'s investigation has revealed
that some Pedal Axle Extenders may not have been built to
specification. The affected pedal axle extenders may break, posing
a fall hazard to the rider.

Neither Health Canada nor Specialized has received any reports of
consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of the product
in Canada.

In the United States, Specialized has received 10 reports of the
Pedal Axle Extenders breaking, including 2 reports of minor
injuries, such as scrapes and bruising.

Approximately 376 Pedal Axle Extender pairs were sold in Canada,
and approximately 6,500 units were sold in the United States by
Authorized Specialized Retailers.

The recalled products were sold in Canada from January 2009 to
June 2015.

Manufactured in Taiwan.

Manufacturer: Wellgo Pedal's Corp.
              Taichung Hsien
              TAIWAN, PROVINCE OF CHINA

Distributor: Specialized Canada Incorporated
             Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue
             Quebec
             CANADA

Consumers should immediately stop using the Pedal Axle Extenders
and return them to an Authorized Specialized Retailer for a full
refund.

For more information, consumers can contact Specialized toll free
at 1-800-465-8887, Monday through Friday from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm
EST, by email or visit the Specialized website.

Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's
website.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.

This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product
Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on
other international consumer product recalls.

Pictures of the Recalled Products are available at:
http://is.gd/cGJy9l


STRASNER SAFETY: "Cervantez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Moises Cervantez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Strasner Safety Solutions, LLC d/b/a Safety
Solutions, LLC, Case No. 7:15-cv-00103 (W.D. Tex., July 15, 2015),
seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

Headquartered in Midland, Texas, Strasner Safety Solutions, LLC
provides safety services to the petrochemical, wind energy,
construction, and industrial market sectors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Clifton Alexander, Esq.
      SICO, WHITE, HOELSCHER & BRAUGH, LLP
      900 Frost Bank Plaza
      802 N. Carancahua St.
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Telephone: (361) 653-3300
      Facsimile: (361) 653-3333
      E-mail: calexander@swhhb.com


TEVA PHARMA: Sept. 29 Nexium Settlement Approval Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
If you purchased Nexium (esomeprazole magnesium) or its generic
equivalent for yourself or your family, the partial settlements of
a class action lawsuit may affect your rights.

You may be affected by the partial settlements of a class action
lawsuit claiming that AstraZeneca AB, Aktiebolaget Hassle,
AstraZeneca LP, Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ranbaxy Inc.,
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (together, "Non-Settling Defendants"),
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
Inc. ("Teva"), Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd., and Dr. Reddy's
Laboratories, Inc. ("DRL" and, together with Teva, "Settling
Defendants") violated various state laws by delaying the
availability of allegedly less expensive generic versions of
Nexium.  The lawsuit alleges Defendants' conduct caused certain
consumers and third-party payors (collectively, "EndPayors")
to pay too much for Nexium.  All Defendants deny any wrongdoing.
Settlements have been reached with Teva and DRL.  The lawsuit will
continue against the Non-Settling Defendants.

Are You Affected? As a consumer, you may be a member of the End-
Payor Class on behalf of which the Settlements were reached if you
purchased or paid for some or all of the purchase price for Nexium
and/or its generic equivalent in AZ, CA, FL, IA, KS, MA, ME, MI,
MN, MS, NE, NV, NM, NY, NC, ND, OR, RI, SD, TN, UT (while a
resident or citizen of UT), VT, WI, WV, and/or District of
Columbia from April 14, 2008 onward, in capsule form, for
consumption by yourself or your family.  If you are obligated to
pay a tiered co-payment (i.e., a co-payment amount that differs
between brand and generic prescriptions) or you are obligated to
pay a percentage of the purchase price, you are in the Class.
Certain third-party payors are also members of the Class.  You are
NOT an End-Payor Class Member if you: (a) have a "Cadillac Plan"
"flat co-payment" as part of your insurance coverage, which means
you must pay a flat co-payment amount for a prescription
regardless of whether it is a brand or generic, and all of your
purchases of Nexium or generic Nexium were made through this
plan; (b) purchased Nexium or generic Nexium only directly from
Defendants or only for resale purposes; (c) purchased or received
Nexium or generic Nexium only through a Medicaid program; (d) are
one of the Defendants or an officer, director, manager, employee,
subsidiary, or affiliate of Defendants; (e) are the judge in this
lawsuit or a member of the judge's immediate family; or (f) you
previously excluded yourself from the End-Payor Class.

What Do The Settlements Provide? DRL agreed to withdraw certain
motions, and agreed to provide witnesses, a certification, and a
factual proffer for use in the trial involving the End-Payor
Class, other plaintiffs, and the remaining Defendants.  To settle
this lawsuit involving the End-Payor Class and two other plaintiff
groups (the Direct Purchaser Class and Individual Retailers), Teva
has agreed to deposit a total of $24 million into a Settlement
Fund, which will be used to pay: (1) costs and expenses incurred
by counsel for all three plaintiff groups; (2) up to $2 million in
costs and expenses incurred in continuing the lawsuit against the
Non-Settling Defendants; (3) taxable costs and taxes payable on
the Settlement Fund; (4) incentive awards to the named End-Payor
and Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs; and (5) settlement
administration and notice expenses.  The remainder of the
Settlement Fund, if any, will be allocated as follows: (a) $1
million to the End-Payor Class, which may be distributed as a cy
pres (charitable) distribution if no further recoveries result in
distributions to members of the End-Payor Class; (b) and 61% of
the balance to the Direct Purchaser Class and 39% to the
Individual Retailer Class.

Your Rights & Options. You have the right to object to one or both
Settlements and you (or your lawyer) may appear and speak in
Court, but it is not required.  The deadline to submit an
objection or request to appear is August 10, 2015.  Go to
www.NexiumCase.com for details.

The Court's Fairness Hearing. The Court will hold a hearing in
this case (In re: Nexium (Esomeprazole) Antitrust Litig., MDL No.
2409) at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time on September 29, 2015 to consider
whether to approve the Settlements and a request for the payment
of up to $2,500,000 in costs and expenses incurred to date and
$5,000 incentive awards to each of the ten named End-Payor
Plaintiffs.

Want More Information? Go to the website, call tollfree,
or write to Nexium End-Payor Notice Administrator, P.O. Box 43229,
Providence, RI 02940-3229, for more information, including more
complete information regarding Class membership and rights.

Contact:

1-855-298-0603
www.NexiumCase.com


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Sued Over Failure to Make Benefit Payments
--------------------------------------------------------------
Riverview Health Institute, on its own behalf and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. UnitedHealth Group Inc., United
Healthcare Services, Inc., United Healthcare Insurance Company,
and Optum, Inc., Case No. 0:15-cv-03064-DSD-JSM (D. Minn., July
15, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to make
benefit payments that are due and owing to participants and
beneficiaries under the terms of United Plans and its self-
interested misuse of the assets of United Plans.

The Defendants operate a fully integrated company that is in the
business of insuring and administering health insurance plans.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
      Kristen G. Marttila, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
      100 Washington Ave S Ste 2200
      Minneapolis, MN 55401-2179
      Telephone: (612) 339-6900
      Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
      E-mail: riebekh@locklaw.com
              kgmarttila@locklaw.com

         - and -

      D. Brian Hufford, Esq.
      Jason S. Cowart, Esq.
      ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
      399 Park Avenue, 14th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 704-9600
      Facsimile: (212) 704-4256
      E-mail: dbhufford@zukerman.com
              jcowart@zukerman.com

         - and -

      William K. Meyer, Esq.
      ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
      100 East Pratt Street, Suite 2440
      Baltimore, MD 21202
      Telephone: (410) 332-0444
      Facsimile: (410) 659-0436
      E-mail: wmeyer@zukerman.com

         - and -

      Anthony F. Maul, Esq.
      THE MAUL FIRM, P.C.
      68 Jay Street, Suite 201
      Brooklyn, NY 11201
      Telephone: (718) 310-3704
      Facsimile: (866) 488-7936
      E-mail: afmaul@maulfirm.com


US AIRWAYS: Judge Trims "Sheffer" Suit Over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robert C. Jones of the District of Nevada granted
in part defendant's motion to dismiss in the case EDNA SHEFFER,
Plaintiff, v. US AIRWAYS, INC., Defendant, NO. 3:15-CV-00204-RCJ-
VPC (D. Nev.)

Plaintiff Edna Sheffer was employed by US Airways, Inc. as a
Customer Service Agent at its Reno, Nevada call center. Plaintiff
filed a class action complaint in state court, alleging failure to
pay the minimum wage in violation of the Nevada Constitution and
failure to timely pay all wages due and owing upon termination
under Nevada Revised Statutes sections (NRS) 608.140 and 608.020-
050.

Plaintiff alleged that she not compensated for the preclock-in or
post-clock-out activities. Plaintiff was also not paid for certain
at-home training courses and weekly examinations she was required
to pass with a 95% score as a condition of continued employment.
The courses and studying required approximately two hours per day.
Plaintiff worked approximately two-and-a-half uncompensated hours
per day.

US Airways moved to dismiss the complaint in part.

Judge Jones granted US Airways' motion, saying the first cause of
the action is limited to acts occurring within three years of the
filing of the complaint and the second cause of action is
dismissed, without leave to amend.

A copy of Judge Jones's order dated June 1, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/RJYqHjfrom Leagle.com.

Edna Sheffer, Plaintiff, represented by:

Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
Joshua D Buck, Esq.
Leah Lin Jones, Esq.
THIERMAN BUCK, LLP
7287 Lakeside Dr.
Reno, NV 89511-76520
Telephone: 775-284-1500
Facsimile: 775-703-5027

US Airways, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mark W. Robertson --
mrobertson@omm.com -- Susannah K. Howard -- showard@omm.com -- at
O'Melveny & Myers, LLP; Richard G. Campbell, Jr. --
rcampbell@downeybrand.com -- Bret F Meich --
bmeich@downeybrand.com -- at Downey Brand LLP


VIVENDI SA: Settlement, Fees Approved in Activision Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster of the Court of Chancery of
Delaware approved the settlement in the case entitled IN RE
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC. STOCKHOLDER LITIGATION, CONSOLIDATED
C.A. NO. 8885-VCL (Del. Ch.)

The lawsuit challenged a transaction in which Vivendi S.A.
divested its controlling equity position in Activision Blizzard,
Inc.  Vivendi was burdened with over $17 billion in net debt and
needed liquidity.  Vivendi explored strategic alternatives for
Activision.  The transaction restructured Activision's governance
profile and stockholder base.

Anthony Pacchia was named Lead Plaintiff and his attorneys Lead
Counsel in the case.

Before the case went to trial, however, the parties entered into a
settlement calling for a global release of all claims relating to
the Restructuring.  The defendants agreed to (i) pay $275 million
to Activision, (ii) reduce a cap on the voting power wielded by
Activision's two senior officers from 24.5% to 19.9%, and (iii)
expand Activision's board of directors to include two independent
individuals unaffiliated with the two senior officers.

When Lead Counsel sought court approval for the Settlement, three
objectors appeared. Douglas Hayes, who previously sought the lead
plaintiff role, lodged the only objection to the Settlement
itself. Hayes did not argue that he could have extracted more
monetary or non-monetary consideration from the defendants. He
rather complained that the Settlement did not allocate any
consideration to Activision's stockholders as a class, and he
complained most about its failure to provide any consideration to
former stockholders who sold their shares. Joint objectors Milton
Pfeiffer and Mark Benston did not object to the Settlement. They
sought a fee award for their counsel.

In May, the Delaware court approved the Settlement and awarded
$72.5 million to Lead Counsel, and authorizes Lead Counsel to make
a $50,000 payment to the Lead Plaintiff from their award.  The
Court denied any fee award to Pfeiffer and Benston's counsel.

                           *     *     *

Nominal defendant Activision is a Delaware corporation with its
headquarters in Santa Monica, California. Activision is a leading
player in the interactive entertainment software industry and one
of the largest video game publishers in the United States.

Defendant Vivendi is a societe anonyme organized under the laws of
France with its headquarters in Paris. Vivendi is a multinational
media and telecommunication company that operates in the music,
television, film, publishing, Internet, and video games sectors.
Vivendi owned 683,643,890 shares of Activision common stock,
representing 61% of the outstanding shares.

Individual defendants Philippe Capron, Frederic Crepin, Regis
Turrini, Lucian Grainge, Jean-Yves Charlier, and Jean-Francois
Dubos were the Vivendi designees on the Board who voted in favor
of the Restructuring. Individual defendants Robert Kotick, Brian
Kelly, Robert Corti, Robert Morgado, and Richard Sarnoff were the
other five members of the Board who voted in favor of the
Restructuring. Corti, Morgado, and Sarnoff were outside directors.
Kelly was Chairman of the Board. Kotick served as Activision's
CEO.

Defendant ASAC II LP (ASAC) is an entity that Kotick and Kelly
formed to participate in the Restructuring. ASAC is an exempt
limited partnership established under the laws of the Cayman
Islands. ASAC's general partner is ASAC II, LLC (ASAC GP), a
Delaware limited liability company. Kotick and Kelly are the
managers of ASAC GP. Through ASAC GP, Kotick and Kelly control
ASAC.

On July 25, 2013, Activision, Vivendi, and ASAC entered into the
transaction agreement that governed the Restructuring or the Stock
Purchase Agreement. Anthony Pacchia learned of the Restructuring
through Activision's public filings and was disturbed by Kotick
and Kelly's role in the transaction. He contacted Bragar Eagel &
Squire, P.C. (BE&S) and used Section 220 of the Delaware General
Corporation Law to obtain books and records relating to the
Restructuring.

On September 11, 2013, Pacchia filed a derivative action.
Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess, P.A. served as Delaware counsel.
BE&S served as forwarding counsel. His complaint alleged that the
individual defendants and Vivendi breached their fiduciary duties
to Activision, committed acts of waste, and caused Kotick, Kelly,
and Vivendi to become unjustly enriched.

Also on September 11, 2013, Douglas Hayes filed a separate action.
Prickett, Jones & Elliott LLP served as Delaware counsel. Kessler,
Topaz, Meltzer & Check, LLP, served as forwarding counsel.

Hayes framed his lawsuit as both a derivative action and a class
action. He included claims similar in form to Pacchia's, including
(i) breach of fiduciary duty against Vivendi and the Activision
directors, (ii) usurpation of a corporate opportunity by Kotick,
Kelly, and ASAC, and (iii) aiding and abetting against various
other defendants.

Simultaneously with the filing of his complaint, Hayes moved for a
temporary restraining order that would prevent the defendants from
consummating the Restructuring until the court had an opportunity
to hear an application for preliminary injunction, which the court
granted the application. October 8, 2013, Hayes circulated a draft
emergency motion to consolidate the pending actions, appoint Hayes
as lead plaintiff, and designate his lawyers as lead counsel. The
purported exigency was the need to finalize the Draft MOU. Pacchia
reluctantly signed on.

Hayes' counsel also tried to convince the law firms of Levi &
Korsinksy LLP and Smith Katzenstein & Furlow LLP to sign the Draft
MOU. They represented Milton Pfeiffer, who had sent Activision a
Section 220 demand in September 2013, after Hayes and Pacchia
filed suit. Pfeiffer's demand remained outstanding when Hayes'
counsel circulated the Draft MOU. Pfeiffer later would file a
Section 220 action, only to dismiss it after Activision disputed
whether he actually owned any stock.

On October 10, 2013, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the
judgment of the Court of Chancery and on remand, both Hayes and
Pacchia filed amended complaint. The court consolidated the two
actions, and a leadership fight ensued. To bolster his litigation
team, Pacchia hired Friedlander & Gorris, P.A., and after hearing
the court designated Pacchia as the lead plaintiff and his counsel
as lead counsel.

Immediately after the leadership hearing, Lead Counsel filed a
second amended class and derivative complaint. Lead Counsel served
document requests and subpoenas and proposed a scheduling order
that would allow the case to be tried in 2014, which the court
allowed. Lead Counsel obtained leave to file a third amended and
supplemental complaint that took into account the early fruits of
document discovery.

The defendants moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), which
the court denied the motion. To assist in case analysis and to
serve as a potential expert, lead counsel retained J.T. Atkins of
Cypress Associates LLC, an investment banking firm that provides
litigation consulting services.

After the close of fact discovery, Atkins submitted a lengthy
expert report supporting lead counsel's damages claims.

Mr. Atkins may be reached at:

     JT Atkins
     Managing Director
     CYPRESS ASSOCIATES LLC
     52 Vanderbilt Ave Rm 501
     New York, NY 10017-3848
     Tel: (212) 682-2222 Extn. 110
     Fax: (212) 682-2221
     E-mail: jta@cyprs.com

On November 10, 2014, Judge Phillips made a series of telephone
calls about a potential global resolution. On November 13, the
parties agreed to the principal terms of their settlement. Lead
counsel and Activision publicly announced the basic terms after
the markets closed on November 19. On December 19, 2014, the
parties filed a stipulation of settlement.

When lead counsel presented the settlement for court approval,
Hayes re-emerged as an objector. In an initial motion challenging
the procedures for considering the settlement, Hayes complained
that he could not access lead counsel's brief, which was filed
confidentially, or the confidential exhibits that lead counsel
submitted. The parties agreed to a stipulation that permitted
Hayes to access the materials. In his formal objection to the
settlement, Hayes advanced the numerous arguments that are the
principal subject of this decision.

Pfeiffer and one Mark Benston resurfaced as well. On behalf of
their counsel, they petitioned for an award of fees and expenses
on the theory that their counsel contributed to the settlement.

A copy of Vice Chancellor Laster's opinion dated May 21, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/FG0ZwMfrom Leagle.com.

Joel Friedlander - jfriedlander@friedlandergorrris.com -- Jeffrey
M. Gorris -- jgorris@friedlandergorris.com -- at FRIEDLANDER &
GORRIS, P.A.; Jessica Zeldin -- jzeldin@rmgglaw.com -- at
ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.; Lawrence P. Eagel --
eagel@bespc.com -- Jeffrey H. Squire -- squire@bespc.com -- at
BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, PC, Attorneys for Plaintiff Raymond J.
DiCamillo,

Susan M. Hannigan -- hannigan@rlf.com -- at RICHARDS, LAYTON &
FINGER, P.A.; Joel A. Feuer -- efeuerstein@gibsondunn.com --
Michael M. Farhang -- mfarhang@gibsondunn.com -- Alexander K.
Mircheff -- amircheff@gibsondunn.com  -- at GIBSON, DUNN &
CRUTCHER LLP, Attorneys for Defendants Vivendi S.A., Philippe
Capron, Frederic Crepin, Regis Turrini, Lucian Grainge, Jean-Yves
Charlier, and Jean-Francois Dubos

R. Judson Scaggs, Jr. -- rscaggs@mnat.com -- Shannon E. German --
sgerman@mnat.com -- at MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL; Robert A.
Sacks -- sacksr@sullcrom.com -- Diane L. McGimsey --
mcgimseyd@sullcrom.com -- William H. Wagener --
wagenerw@sullcrom.com -- at SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP, Attorneys for
Defendants Robert A. Kotick, Brian G. Kelly, ASAC II LP, and ASAC
II LLC

Garrett B. Moritz -- gmoritz@ramllp.com -- Eric D. Selden --
eselden@ramllp.com -- at ROSS ARONSTAM & MORITZ LLP; William
Savitt -- WDSavitt@wlrk.com -- Ryan A. McLeod -- RAMcLeod@wlrk.com
-- Benjamin D. Klein -- BDKlein@wlrk.com -- at WACHTELL, LIPTON,
ROSEN & KATZ, Attorneys for Defendants Robert J. Corti, Robert J.
Morgado, and Richard Sarnoff

Edward P. Welch -- edward.welch@skadden.com -- Edward B.
Micheletti -- edward.micheletti@skadden.com -- Sarah Runnells
Martin -- sarah.martin@skadden.com -- Lori W. Will --
lori.will@skadden.com -- at SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM
LLP, Attorneys for Nominal Defendant Activision Blizzard, Inc.


VONS COMPANIES: Removed "Peron" Class Suit to S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Karl Peron, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general
public v. The Vons Companies, Inc. and Does 1-100, Case No. 37-
02014-00006965-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court, San
Diego County, Central Division to the U.S. District Court Southern
District of California (San Diego). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-01567-L-JMA to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William D. Turley, Esq.
      THE TURLEY LAW FIRM, APLC
      625 Broadway, Suite 635
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 234-2833
      Facsimile: (619) 234-4048
      E-mail: bturley@turleylawfirm.com


WILSON: Recalls 2006 Grain Trailers Due to Crash Risk
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 14, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Heavy Trailer
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Accessories
Units affected: 55
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015308TC
ID number: 2015308

On certain trailers, the welds holding the kingpin assembly may
crack and cause the pickup plate to fail. This could cause the
separation of the trailer from the tractor, increasing the risk of
a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction:
Dealers will inspect, repair welds, and install a new forged steel
kingpin with an additional attaching flange.

  Make     Model           Model year(s) affected
  ----     -----           ----------------------
  WILSON   GRAIN TRAILER   2006


WPX ENERGY: Judge Won't Reconsider Rulings in Landowners' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James O. Browning of the District of New Mexico
rejected motions asking the court to reconsider prior rulings in
the cases entitled THE ANDERSON LIVING TRUST, f/k/a THE JAMES H.
ANDERSON LIVING TRUST; THE PRITCHETT LIVING TRUST; CYNTHIA W.
SADLER; ROBERT WESTFALL; LEE WILEY MONCRIEF 1988 TRUST; KELLY COX
TESTAMENTARY TRUST 7/1238401; MINNIE PATTON SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATION
TRUST; and SWMF PROPERTIES, INC., Plaintiffs, v. WPX ENERGY
PRODUCTION, LLC f/k/a WPX ENERGY SAN JUAN, LLC; WILLIAMS
PRODUCTION COMPANY, LLC; and WPX ENERGY ROCKY MOUNTAIN, LLC, f/k/a
WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT, COMPANY, LLC, Defendants, THE ANDERSON
LIVING TRUST, f/k/a THE JAMES H. ANDERSON LIVING TRUST; THE
PRITCHETT LIVING TRUST; CYNTHIA W. SADLER; SHIRLEY L. SCANLON
LIVING TRUST; ROBERT WESTFALL; LEE WILEY MONCRIEF 1988 TRUST; and
NEELY-ROBERTSON REVOCABLE FAMILY TRUST, Plaintiffs, v.
CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, NOS. CIV 12-0040 JB/WPL,
CIV 12-0039 JB/SCY (D.N.M.)

On October 20, 2011, two nearly identical groups of plaintiffs,
represented by the same group of attorneys, filed two lawsuits in
the 1st Judicial District Court, County of Rio Arriba, State of
New Mexico.  Both suits are proposed class actions on behalf of
landowners who executed long-term leases with the defendants.

The leases, which were executed, for the most part, in the 1940s,
allow the defendants to drill for natural gas on the plaintiffs'
land in exchange for a royalty payment. The plaintiffs contend
that the defendants have been underpaying the royalties in a
number of ways, most notably by paying royalty on natural-gas
liquids at the same price per MMBtu that they pay for natural gas,
which is a cheaper product since time immemorial, and they are
seeking damages for this underpayment going back to 1985.

The defendants in both cases removed the cases to federal court on
January 12, 2012, asserting federal jurisdiction under the Class
Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d) (CAFA). On October
18, 2013, the defendants in each case filed twin motions to
dismiss. The WPX defendants based the motion to dismiss pursuant
to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to
dismiss, in part, the plaintiffs' first, second, fourth, fifth,
eleventh, and twelfth causes of action based upon the applicable
statutes of limitations. The WPX motion to dismiss also sought
dismissal of the plaintiffs' twelfth cause of action in its
entirety for failure to state any claim upon which relief can be
granted, contending that, under the United States Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit's interpretation of New Mexico law in
Elliott Industries LP v. BP America Production Co., the WPX
defendants did not breach the implied duty to market hydrocarbons.

The court issued its memorandum, opinion and order on May 5, 2014,
granting the WPX motion to dismiss in part and denying it in part.
The court dismissed (i) the fraudulent-concealment claim, because
the plaintiffs failed to plead it with particularity, as Rule 9(b)
requires; (ii) the equitable-estoppel claim, because equitable
estoppel does not give rise to an independent cause of action; and
(iii) the continuing-wrong claim, likewise because the continuing-
wrong doctrine does not give rise to an independent cause of
action.

The court also ruled that the fraudulent-concealment, equitable-
estoppel, and continuing-wrong theories, as the plaintiffs pled
them, failed to toll the statutes of limitations.

The WPX defendants filed its motion for reconsideration on July
17, 2014. They essentially argue that the court erred by applying
New Mexico state-law pleading standards instead of Rule 8(a). They
state that the Court decided to apply the so-called Butler
standard, rather than the Rule 8 standard. They argue that,
because the case is in federal court, federal pleading standards,
not state substantive law, must be applied in determining whether
plaintiffs' factual allegations support application of the
discovery rule.

Before Judge Browning is the motion for reconsideration of the
order denying defendants' motion to dismiss based on statute of
limitations, filed July 17, 2014, in Anderson Living Trust v. WPX
Prod., LLC, No. CIV 12-0040 JB/WPL and defendant's motion to
dismiss claims in plaintiffs' second amended complaint filed on
October 18, 2013 in Anderson Living Trust v. ConocoPhillips Co.,
LLC, No. CIV 12-0039 JB/KBM.

Judge Browning rejected the motion for reconsideration of order
denying defendants' motion to dismiss based on statute of
limitations, filed July 17, 2014 in Anderson Living Trust v. WPX
Prod., LLC, No. CIV 12-0040 JB/WP. The defendant's motion to
dismiss claims in plaintiffs' second amended complaint, filed
October 18, 2013 in Anderson Living Trust v. ConocoPhillips Co.,
LLC, No. CIV 12-0039 JB/KBM (Doc. 97), is granted in part and
denied in part; and the ninth, tenth, and twelfth causes of action
in the second amended complaint for underpayment of oil and gas
royalties, filed September 27, 2013 in Anderson Living Trust v.
ConocoPhillips Co., LLC, No. CIV 12-0039 JB/KBM, are dismissed
with prejudice.

A copy of Judge Browning's memorandum opinion dated May 26, 2015,
is available at http://is.gd/KNXgfwfrom Leagle.com.

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

Stan Koop, Esq.
STAN A. KOOP, PLLC
1014 24th Ave NW #100
Norman, OK 73069
Telephone: 405-701-3085

     - and -

Stephen R. McNamara, Esq.
Brian Inbody, Esq.
MCNAMARA, INBODY & PARRISH, PLLC
1437 South Boulder, Suite 1210
Tulsa, OK 74119-3609
Telephone: 918-599-0300
Facsimile: 918-599-0310

     - and -

Karen Aubrey, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF KAREN AUBREY
320 Paseo De Peralta # A
Santa Fe, NM 87501
Telephone: 505-982-4287

     - and -

Brian K. Branch, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF BRIAN K. BRANCH
715 Marquette Ave NW
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Telephone: 505-764-9710

     - and -

Bradley D. Brickell, Esq.
BRICKELL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
1014 24th Ave NW #100
Norman, OK 73069
Telephone: 405-360-0400

     - and -

Turner W. Branch, Esq. -- tbranch@branchlawfirm.com -- Cynthia
Zedalis, Esq. -- at Branch Law Firm

Sarah Gillett, Esq. -- sgillett@hallestill.com -- Dustin L. Perry,
Esq. -- dperry@hallestill.com -- at Hall Estill Hardwick P.C.;
Christopher A. Chrisman, Esq. -- cachrisman@hollandhart.com -- at
Mark F. Sheridan, Esq. -- msheridan@hollandhart.com -- Bradford C.
Berge, Esq. -- bberge@hollandhart.com -- Robert J. Sutphin, Esq.
-- rsutphin@hollandhart.com -- John C. Anderson, Esq. --
jcanderson@hollandhart.com -- at Holland & Hart LLP,
Attorneys for the Defendants WPX Energy Production, LLC f/k/a WPX
Energy San Juan, LLC; Williams Production Company, LLC; and WPX
Energy Rocky Mountain, LLC, f/k/a Williams Production RMT,
Company, LLC

Michael B. Campbell, Esq., Santa Fe, New Mexico; Robert J.
Sutphin, Esq. -- rsutphin@hollandhart.com -- Adam G. Rankin, Esq.
-- agrankin@hollandhart.com -- at Holland & Hart, LLP, Attorneys
for Defendant ConocoPhillips Company, LLC


XTO ENERGY: Faces "Marburger" Suit Over Alleged Breach of Leases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard P. Marburger, Trustee of the Olive M. Marburger Living
Trust and Thiele Family, LP v. XTO Energy Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
00910-CRE (W.D. Pa., July 14, 2015), arises from the Defendant's
alleged breach of the oil and gas leases, specifically by
deducting various expenses in calculating and paying royalties.

XTO Energy Inc. is a Delaware corporation that explores for and
produces gas from Marcellus shale wells located in Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David A. Borkovic, Esq.
      JONES, GREGG, CREEHAN & GERACE LLP
      411 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1200
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1905
      Telephone: (412) 261-6400
      Facsimile: (412) 261-2652
      E-mail: dab@jgcg.com


ZHONGPIN INC: Del. Supreme Court Ruled on Shareholders' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Justice Leo E. Strine, Jr. of the Supreme Court of Delaware
reversed the Delaware Court of Chancery's denial of the motions to
dismiss, and remanded the appealed case entitled IN RE CORNERSTONE
THERAPUTICS INC, STOCKHOLDER LITIGATION. RAYMOND LEAL, YAOGUO PAN,
and XIAOSONG HU, Defendants Below-Appellants, v. PHILLIP MEEKS,
ERNESTO RODRIGUEZ, and ALAN HALL, Plaintiffs Below-Appellees, NOS.
564, 2014, 706, 2014 (Del.)

The appeals both involve damages actions by stockholder plaintiffs
arising out of mergers in which the controlling stockholder, who
had representatives on the board of directors, acquired the
remainder of the shares that it did not own in a Delaware public
corporation. Both mergers were negotiated by special committees of
independent directors, were ultimately approved by a majority of
the minority stockholders, and were at substantial premiums to the
pre-announcement market price.  Nonetheless, the plaintiffs filed
suit in the Court of Chancery in each case, contending that the
directors had breached their fiduciary duty by approving
transactions that were unfair to the minority stockholders.

In re: Cornerstone Therapeutics Inc. Stockholder Litigation, the
independent director defendants moved to dismiss on the grounds
that the plaintiffs had failed to plead any non-exculpated claim
against them. The independent directors argued that although the
entire fairness standard applied to the Court of Chancery's review
of the underlying transaction, and thus the controlling
stockholder and its affiliated directors were at risk of being
found liable for breaches of the duty of loyalty, the plaintiffs
still bore the burden to plead non-exculpated claims against the
independent directors. In response, the plaintiffs argued that the
Court of Chancery could not grant the independent directors'
motion to dismiss, regardless of whether they had sufficiently
pled non-exculpated claims.

In re: Zhongpin Stockholders Litigation, the independent director
defendants argued that the claims against them should be dismissed
because the plaintiffs had failed to plead any non-exculpated
claims. The Court of Chancery in Zhongpin deferred to
Cornerstone's interpretation of precedent and held that the claims
against the independent directors survived their motion to dismiss
regardless of whether the complaint stated a non-exculpated claim
because the transaction was subject to entire fairness review.

In both cases, the defendant directors were insulated from
liability for monetary damages for breaches of the fiduciary duty
of care by an exculpatory charter provision adopted in accordance
with 8 Del. C. Section 102(b)(7). Despite the provision, the
plaintiffs in each case not only sued the controlling stockholders
and their affiliated directors, but also sued the independent
directors who had negotiated and approved the mergers.

The Court of Chancery in both of cases denied the defendants'
motions to dismiss. Hence the appeal.

Justice Strine reversed the judgment of the Court of Chancery and
remanded the suits for the Court of Chancery to determine if the
plaintiffs have sufficiently pled facts suggesting that the
independent directors committed a non-exculpated breach of their
fiduciary duty.

A copy of Justice Strine's decision dated May 14, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/Q9hD14from Leagle.com.

Donald J. Wolfe, Jr., Esquire, Kevin R. Shannon, Esquire,
Christopher N. Kelly, Esquire, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP,
Wilmington, Delaware, for Defendants Below-Appellants Michael
Enright, Christopher Codeanne, James A. Harper, Michael Heffernan
and Laura Shawver; Kurt Heyman, Esquire, Dawn Kurtz Crompton,
Esquire, Proctor Heyman LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, for Defendants
Below-Appellants Craig A. Collard and Robert M. Stephan; Anthony
M. Candido, Esquire, Robert C. Myers, Esquire, John P. Alexander,
Esquire, Clifford Chance US LLP, New York, New York, for
Defendants Below-Appellants in In re Cornerstone Therapeutics Inc.
Stockholder Litigation

Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esquire, Brian D. Long, Esquire, Gina M. Serra,
Esquire, Jeremy J. Riley, Esquire, Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.,
Wilmington, Delaware; J. Brandon Walker, Esquire, Melissa A.
Fortunato, Esquire, Kirby McInerney LLP, New York, New York; Shane
Rowley, Esquire, Levi & Korsinsky LLP, New York, New York; Chet B.
Waldmann, Esquire, Joshua H. Saltzman, Esquire, Wolf Popper LLP,
New York, New York, for Plaintiffs Below-Appellants Edwin Myruski,
James Parker, Daniel Blaschak, and David Julier, in In re
Cornerstone Therapeutics Inc. Stockholder Litigation

S. Mark Hurd, Esquire, Matthew R. Clark, Esquire, Thomas P. Will,
Esquire, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington,
Delaware; Robert H. Pees, Esquire, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Field
LLP, New York, New York, for Defendants Below-Appellants Raymond
Leal, Yaoguo Pan, and Xiaosong Hu

Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esquire, Brian D. Long, Esquire, Gina M. Serra,
Esquire, Jeremy J. Riley, Esquire, Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.,
Wilmington, Delaware; Donald J. Enright, Esquire, Levi & Korinsky
LLP, Washington, DC; Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esquire, Ofer Ganot,
Esquire, Pomerantz LLP, New York, New York, for Plaintiffs Below-
Appellees Phillip Meeks, Ernesto Rodriguez, and Alan Hall


* Gibson Dunn Attorney to Challenge Fast Food Sector Wage Hike
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for The Am Law Daily, reports that Gibson,
Dunn & Crutcher's Randy Mastro, a former deputy New York City
mayor turned thorn-in-the-side of state and local government, has
found a new target: New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo's proposal to raise
minimum wages in the state's fast food restaurants.

Mr. Mastro confirmed on July 21 that he's been tapped by a
coalition of fast food franchisees to contest the governor's plan
to bump the fast food industry's minimum wage to $15 per hour.
Many of the franchisees in the group, he said, are minority and
women-owned businesses whose operations could be endangered by the
wage hike.

"They're already struggling to survive on low margins," said
Mr. Mastro.  "This kind of dramatic fiat from the government could
cause many of them to go under."

A three-member wage board that Mr. Cuomo convened in May was
expected to adopt the proposal on July 22 and send it to the
state's labor commissioner for final approval.  New York's current
minimum wage is $8.75 per hour for all workers, although that's
due to increase to $9 by the end of this year.

While opponents of Mr. Cuomo's plan have cried foul over the
proposal's targeting of a single industry, backers have hailed it
as a step toward increasing pay for all low-wage workers.  The
governor, for his part, defended his executive action in a May 6
New York Times Op-Ed, citing a delay among lawmakers to move
forward with related legislation.

Crain's New York Business, which first noted Mr. Mastro's new
assignment, reported on July 21 that the Gibson Dunn-led legal
challenge will likely focus on whether Mr. Cuomo overstepped his
authority by skirting normal legislative channels.

Mr. Mastro told The Am Law Daily on July 21 that it's premature to
say exactly how he'll contest the wage hike, since the increase
hasn't yet been finalized.  But all options are on the table, he
said.

"We're going to explore all available legal remedies, including
the composition of the wage board, the rush to judgment that
occurred here, whether the action is consistent with the legal
mandate, and whether the ultimate outcome can be justified on any
rational basis, given the discrimination that it imposes," he
said.

Mr. Mastro, a co-chair of Gibson Dunn's litigation practice,
served as chief of staff and deputy mayor for New York City in the
Rudy Giuliani administration. Since then, he's developed a
reputation for challenging various government actions, or, as he
put it: "Who better to know when government screws up than a
former deputy mayor who's a litigator?"

In April, for example, Mr. Mastro filed a state court petition
contesting a ban on polystyrene foam food containers imposed by
current New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio.  The ban, which took
effect July 1, prohibits restaurants in the city from using foam
for certain food-service products, such as takeout containers,
cups and plates.

Mr. Mastro's clients, the Restaurant Action Alliance NYC, Dart
Container Corp. and others, maintain that the foam prohibition
serves to further Mr. de Blasio's political agenda, but came
without a meaningful review by city officials.

Meanwhile, at least some of Mr. Mastro's time has been consumed by
a more personal crusade against New York City's government.  The
Gibson Dunn lawyer in October sued the city, its environmental
control board, fire department, fire commissioner and other
departments in state court, contesting a $375 fine he was issued
over two false fire alarms at his residence in Manhattan's Upper
East Side.

Beyond his battles with government, Mr. Mastro is probably best
known as the bane of a group of Ecuadorean plaintiffs' attempts to
collect on a megajudgment against Chevron Corp. over environmental
damage to the Amazon rain forest.  He's also been keeping
reporters busy as the head of a Gibson Dunn team tapped by
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's office to investigate the 2013
George Washington Bridge lane-closure scandal.


* Worker Classification Class Actions "On-Demand" This Summer
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marlisse Silver Sweeney, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports
that litigation is "on-demand" this summer.  But before you go
reaching for your remote controls, what Robert Whitman and
Adam Smiley of Seyfarth Shaw mean is that a second wave of worker
classification lawsuits is springing up.  "Numerous tech companies
have been hit with class or collective action lawsuits alleging
misclassification of their workers, most filed by the same
plaintiffs' attorney who avoided summary judgment against Uber and
Lyft earlier this year," they say.

What's causing these latest legal blockbusters? In June, the
California Labor Commissioner ruled that a former Uber driver was
an employee of the ride-sharing company.  Though the decision
isn't binding on any court and applies only to the employee at
issue, it "created shockwaves and has led to widespread
speculation about a similar ruling in the class action lawsuits,"
they say.

According to the authors, the U.S. Department of Labor is expected
to issue guidance on independent contractor classification soon.
"While we can't predict the exact content, we anticipate that the
[administrator's interpretation] will tighten the requirements of
the independent contractor classification, which would be
consistent with the DOL's aggressive enforcement in this area,"
they say.



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Marion
Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala,
Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2015. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *